Cutright 09

BETWEEN THE KITCHEN AND THE STATE:
DOMESTIC PRACTICE AND CHIMÚ EXPANSION IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE VALLEY, PERU
by
Robyn E. Cutright
BA, Lawrence University, 2000
MA, University of Pittsburgh, 2005
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
The Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
University of Pittsburgh
2009
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
This dissertation was presented
by
Robyn E. Cutright
It was defended on
April 17, 2009
and approved by
Dr. Robert D. Drennan
Dr. Katheryn Linduff
Dr. Carol J. Mackey
Dr. James B. Richardson, III
Dr. Marc P. Bermann

Dissertation Advisor
ii
BETWEEN THE KITCHEN AND THE STATE: DOMESTIC PRACTICE AND CHIMÚ
EXPANSION IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE VALLEY, PERU
Robyn E. Cutright, PhD
University of Pittsburgh, 2009
Copyright © by Robyn E. Cutright
2009
iii
BETWEEN THE KITCHEN AND THE STATE: DOMESTIC PRACTICE AND CHIMÚ
EXPANSION IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE VALLEY, PERU
Robyn E. Cutright, PhD
University of Pittsburgh, 2009
This thesis investigates change and continuity in domestic life and culinary practice at Pedregal,
a small rural settlement in the Jequetepeque Valley, as it was incorporated into the Chimú state
in the 14th century A.D. Specifically, research was designed to document the impact of Chimú
conquest on local domestic economy, and to generate a “view from below” of Chimú
administrative strategies. At the same time, it aimed to identify potential changes in the focus or
range of household activities in the context of Chimú expansion, in order to investigate how late
prehispanic domestic economies responded to change at the regional level.
Excavations in household units and midden deposits at Pedregal and analysis of
botanical, faunal, and ceramic remains were employed to reconstruct food processing,
preparation, and consumption in households before and after Chimú conquest. Results suggest
that strong elements of both change and continuity characterized Pedregal domestic economies
during the LIP. Household processing of maize and cotton increased substantially during the
LIP, possibly in response to Chimú state strategies related to the production and extraction of
these staples. However, despite a shift in patterns of resource procurement from wild resources
to domesticated species, the general outline of cuisine and culinary practice at Pedregal
remained the same. Most changes observed at Pedregal occurred in the intensity and focus of
procurement and production strategies, rather than in the range of domestic activities.
This study suggests that though the Chimú imposed provincial administrative
infrastructure on the Jequetepeque Valley and increased production of bulk staples such as
iv
maize and cotton, local rural life was not substantially altered by Chimú conquest. In this case,
incorporation into wider regional political and economic systems did not result in the loss of
household economic autonomy in rural communities. Rather, households responded to regional
political and economic change by altering the focus, but not the range of household economic
activities.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................ xxii
1.0 INTRODUCTION: FOOD, FAMILY, AND EMPIRE ..................................................... 1
1.1.1 A household view of Chimú expansion ....................................................... 2
1.2 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PREHISPANIC ANDEAN EMPIRES ............. 5
1.2.1 The Inka model ............................................................................................... 8
1.2.2 Chimú imperialism ....................................................................................... 12
1.3 HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AND CONTINUITY .................................................... 14
1.3.1 Multiple dimensions of household change and continuity ...................... 16
1.3.2 Intrahousehold processes of continuity and change ............................... 18
1.3.3 Social reproduction ..................................................................................... 19
1.4 A CULINARY APPROACH TO HOUSEHOLD CHANGE ................................. 20
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 26
1.5.1 Did agricultural production, specifically maize production, intensify
under Chimú rule?.................................................................................................... 26
1.5.2 Did patterns of feasting or chicha production shift with incorporation
into the Chimú polity?.............................................................................................. 27
1.5.3 Did households adopt forms of Chimú culinary practice? ...................... 27
1.5.4 Did household scheduling priorities change as households were
incorporated into new regional economic systems? ............................................ 28
vi
1.5.5 Did incorporation into the Chimú state affect household gender
relations? .................................................................................................................. 29
1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION ........................................................... 30
2.0 ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SETTING ........................................................... 33
2.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................... 34
2.1.1 Geography and ecology .............................................................................. 34
2.1.2 Resource distribution on the coast ............................................................ 36
2.1.3 Sources of risk in the Jequetepepque Valley ............................................ 37
2.1.3.1 The El Niño cycle ............................................................................... 38
2.1.3.2 Uplift and seismic activity ................................................................. 40
2.2 THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SETTING ............................................... 41
2.2.1 Early developments ..................................................................................... 41
2.2.2 Moche in the Jequetepeque ........................................................................ 42
2.2.3 Lambayeque (Sicán) .................................................................................... 47
2.2.4 The Chimú empire ........................................................................................ 51
2.2.4.1 Models of statecraft on the north coast........................................... 51
2.2.4.2 Chan Chan .......................................................................................... 53
2.2.4.3 The Moche Valley system under the Chimú .................................... 56
2.2.4.4 Time and change in the Chimú state ............................................... 57
2.2.4.5 Chimú state expansion and provincial rule..................................... 58
2.2.4.6 Scenarios of Chimú rule in the Jequetepeque ................................ 65
3.0 RECONSTRUCTING CULINARY PRACTICE AT PEDREGAL ................................ 68
3.1.1 Food processing .......................................................................................... 68
3.1.2 Food preparation and consumption ........................................................... 69
3.1.3 Storage and disposal ................................................................................... 72
vii
3.2 OUTLINE OF FIELDWORK AND EXCAVATION STRATEGIES ..................... 74
3.2.1 Excavation strategies .................................................................................. 74
3.2.2 Laboratory procedures ................................................................................ 78
4.0 EXCAVATIONS AT PEDREGAL ............................................................................... 81
4.1 THE MOCHE OCCUPATION: SECTORS C AND E ......................................... 81
4.2 THE LATE INTERMEDIATE PERIOD OCCUPATION: SECTORS A AND B .. 88
4.2.1 Excavations in Sector A .............................................................................. 90
4.2.1.1 Area 2 .................................................................................................. 90
4.2.1.2 Area 4 .................................................................................................. 98
4.2.1.3 Area 6 ................................................................................................ 101
4.2.1.4 Other areas in Sector A ................................................................... 107
4.2.1.5 Late Intermediate Period households ............................................ 110
4.2.2 Excavations in Sector B ............................................................................ 110
4.3 THE LATE HORIZON: SECTOR D ................................................................. 115
5.0 THE PEDREGAL HOUSEHOLD ............................................................................. 120
5.1.1 The architecture and domestic space of Pedregal households ............ 120
5.1.2 Pedregal domestic architecture in regional perspective........................ 128
5.2 SOCIAL AND FAMILY ORGANIZATION ........................................................ 131
5.2.1 Demography and population at Pedregal ................................................ 133
5.3 HOUSE, COMMUNITY, AND LOWER VALLEY ............................................. 135
5.4 CONCLUSIONS: THE PEDREGAL HOUSEHOLD ........................................ 138
6.0 PROVISIONING THE HOUSEHOLD AT PEDREGAL ............................................ 140
6.1 PROCURING FOOD IN THE JEQUETEPEPQUE VALLEY ........................... 141
6.1.1 Agricultural products and wild plants ...................................................... 142
6.1.1.1 Wild and nonlocal plants................................................................. 149
viii
6.1.1.2 Pedregal plant use in regional perspective ................................... 150
6.1.1.3 Changing plant use through time................................................... 155
6.1.2 Terrestrial fauna ......................................................................................... 157
6.1.2.1 Camelids ........................................................................................... 158
6.1.2.2 Cuy .................................................................................................... 161
6.1.2.3 Other animals ................................................................................... 161
6.1.2.4 Animal use in regional perspective................................................ 163
6.1.2.5 Changing animal use through time ................................................ 164
6.1.3 Fish .............................................................................................................. 166
6.1.3.1 Pedregal fish use in regional perspective ..................................... 170
6.1.3.2 Changing fish use through time ..................................................... 172
6.1.4 Shellfish ...................................................................................................... 176
6.1.4.1 Shellfish use in regional perspective............................................. 178
6.1.4.2 Changing shellfish use through time............................................. 181
6.2 CLOTHING THE FAMILY ................................................................................ 183
6.3 PROCURING FUEL, FODDER, AND FERTILIZER ........................................ 185
6.4 OBTAINING POTTERY AND OTHER TOOLS ............................................... 186
6.5 CONCLUSIONS: PROVISIONING THE HOUSEHOLD .................................. 193
7.0 HOUSEHOLD WORK AT PEDREGAL ................................................................... 195
7.1 FOOD PROCESSING ...................................................................................... 195
7.1.1 Plant processing at Pedregal .................................................................... 197
7.1.1.1 Groundstone processing tools at Pedregal .................................. 201
7.1.1.2 Plant products and processing byproducts at Pedregal ............. 204
7.1.1.3 Pedregal maize processing in regional perspective .................... 206
7.1.2 Processing meat and fish at Pedregal ..................................................... 211
ix
7.1.3 Fish processing .......................................................................................... 218
7.2 FOOD PREPARATION AND MEALS ............................................................. 220
7.2.1 North coast cuisine .................................................................................... 221
7.2.1.1 Haute cuisine in the Andes ............................................................. 221
7.2.1.2 Reconstructing culinary operations .............................................. 223
7.2.1.3 Stewing and boiling ......................................................................... 224
7.2.1.4 Roasting............................................................................................ 226
7.2.1.5 Toasting ............................................................................................ 227
7.2.1.6 Fermenting ....................................................................................... 227
7.2.1.7 Serving and eating ........................................................................... 230
7.2.2 Ingredients .................................................................................................. 230
7.2.3 Culinary technology at Pedregal .............................................................. 231
7.2.3.1 Ollas .................................................................................................. 233
7.2.3.2 Jars.................................................................................................... 236
7.2.3.3 Serving vessels ................................................................................ 238
7.2.3.4 Storage vessels................................................................................ 242
7.2.3.5 Other vessels ................................................................................... 242
7.2.3.6 Other evidence ................................................................................. 244
7.3 TEXTILE PRODUCTION ................................................................................. 245
7.3.1 The social organization of textile production in the Andes ................... 245
7.3.2 Spinning ...................................................................................................... 247
7.3.3 Weaving and sewing .................................................................................. 251
7.4 GENDERING HOUSEHOLD WORK ............................................................... 253
7.5 CONCLUSIONS: DAILY HOUSEHOLD WORK AT PEDREGAL ................... 254
8.0 THE RITUAL LIFE OF PEDREGAL HOUSEHOLDS .............................................. 257
x
8.1 HOUSEHOLD RITUAL AT PEDREGAL ......................................................... 258
8.1.1 Maize offerings ........................................................................................... 258
8.1.2 Spondylus offerings .................................................................................. 259
8.1.3 Hair offerings .............................................................................................. 263
8.2 COMMUNITY-WIDE RITUAL AT PEDREGAL................................................ 263
8.2.1 Platform construction ................................................................................ 264
8.2.1.1 Platform chronology ........................................................................ 265
8.2.2 Platforms as loci of burial rites ................................................................. 267
8.2.3 Platforms and public areas as loci of feasting ........................................ 269
8.2.3.1 Faunal evidence for feasting at Pedregal ...................................... 271
8.2.3.2 Ceramic evidence for feasting at Pedregal ................................... 273
8.2.3.3 Botanical evidence for feasting at Pedregal ................................. 275
8.2.4 The social organization of feasts ............................................................. 276
8.2.5 Change through time in feasting at Pedregal .......................................... 277
8.3 PEDREGAL IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE RITUAL LANDSCAPE..................... 279
9.0 THE HOUSEHOLD IN THREE DIMENSIONS ......................................................... 281
9.1 USE OF SPACE AND SPATIAL DIFFERENTIATION .................................... 281
9.1.1 Activity areas and use of space within Pedregal houses....................... 283
9.1.1.1 Multivariate analyses of floor and feature assemblages ............. 284
9.1.2 Use of space and social differentiation within the community.............. 288
9.1.2.1 Differences among Sector A households...................................... 289
9.1.2.2 Spatial patterning at the community level ..................................... 296
9.1.3 Landscape, space, and resources in the lower valley ............................ 298
9.1.3.1 The regional social and political setting........................................ 300
9.2 VARIATION THROUGH TIME ......................................................................... 302
xi
9.2.1 Daily and weekly rhythms ......................................................................... 304
9.2.2 Seasonal cycles ......................................................................................... 304
9.2.3 Longer cycles ............................................................................................. 306
9.3 CONCLUSIONS: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ORGANIZATION .................. 307
10.0 CHIMÚ EXPANSION, DOMESTIC ECONOMY, AND CUISINE .............................. 309
10.1 QUESTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS .............................................................. 310
10.1.1 Agricultural production ............................................................................ 310
10.1.2 Household scheduling priorities and the organization of domestic labor
312
10.1.3 Political organization, feasting and chicha production ......................... 314
10.1.4 Acculturation ............................................................................................. 316
10.1.5 Intrahousehold gender relations ............................................................. 319
10.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR CHIMÚ IMPERIALISM.................................................. 320
10.3 CUISINE, CONTINUITY, AND CHANGE ........................................................ 321
10.4 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................................... 323
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 325
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ 361
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................ 363
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................ 380
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................ 443
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................................ 514
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Excavated areas and volumes ................................................................................... 74
Table 5.1. Population estimates for Pedregal compounds ....................................................... 134
Table 6.1. Plant species at Pedregal by category, proportion, and ubiquity in contexts with
botanical material ...................................................................................................................... 144
Table 6.2. Macrobotanical assemblage by category ................................................................. 146
Table 6.3. Botanical remains at two Moche Valley sites (Pozorski 1979:Table 2) .................... 151
Table 6.4. Average frequencies (parts per liter) for the most common plant species in noble and
commoner rooms groups at Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991:Table 3.4)..................................... 152
Table 6.5. Number of kernels on cobs from early and late LIP by proportion of cob assemblage,
with error ranges at 95% ........................................................................................................... 154
Table 6.6. Terrestrial faunal species at Pedregal ..................................................................... 158
Table 6.7. Aged camelid elements at Pedregal ........................................................................ 159
Table 6.8. Faunal remains from two Moche Valley sites (Pozorski 1979:Table 1) ................... 164
Table 6.9. Average biomass of animal species from Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991:Table 3.6)
.................................................................................................................................................. 164
Table 6.10. Proportions and error ranges at 95% confidence for the most common mammal
species at Pedregal in early and late LIP Sector A ................................................................... 165
Table 6.11. Fish species at Pedregal ........................................................................................ 167
Table 6.12. Selected Pedregal fish species by habitat ............................................................. 168
xiii
Table 6.13. Fish remains from two Moche Valley sites (Pozorski 1979:Table 1)...................... 170
Table 6.14. Fish MNI from selected samples at Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991:Table 3.8) ...... 171
Table 6.15. Shellfish and crustaceans at Pedregal by proportion of total MNI ......................... 177
Table 6.16. Shellfish from two Moche Valley sites (Pozorski 1979:Table 1)............................. 179
Table 6.17. Average frequency (MNI per liter) of shellfish at Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991:Table
3.7) ............................................................................................................................................ 180
Table 6.18. Comparison of Donax and Polinices densities in early and late LIP ...................... 181
Table 6.19. Lithics at Pedregal ................................................................................................. 187
Table 7.1. Selected plants species in early and late LIP occupations at Pedregal ................... 205
Table 7.2. Mean cob, kernel, and cupule densities at north coast sites ................................... 209
Table 7.3. Pedregal camelid assemblage by element and meat packet ................................... 214
Table 7.4. Pedregal ceramic assemblage ................................................................................. 233
Table 7.5. Mean rim diameters of selected ceramic forms in early and late LIP assemblages 237
Table 7.6. Spindle whorls at Pedregal ...................................................................................... 248
Table 7.7. Spindle whorls by occupation at Pedregal ............................................................... 250
Table 8.1. Pedregal adobe dimensions .................................................................................... 266
Table 8.2. Mean rim diameters of selected ceramic forms in Sector A and B .......................... 274
Table 9.1. Needles and spindle whorls by area in Sector A ..................................................... 290
Table 9.2. Evidence for food processing and preparation by area in Sector A ......................... 291
Table 9.3. Wealth items by area in Sector A ............................................................................. 295
Table 9.4. Reconstruction of temporal cycles at Pedregal ........................................................ 303
Table A.1. Excavation data ....................................................................................................... 365
Table A.2. Botanical data 1 ....................................................................................................... 382
xiv
Table A.5. Terrestrial faunal data.............................................................................................. 445
Table A.6. Fish data .................................................................................................................. 464
Table A.7. Shellfish data 1 ........................................................................................................ 477
Table A.8. Shellfish data 2 ........................................................................................................ 495
Table A.9. Olla carination and neck height by type ................................................................... 517
Table A.10. Olla types at Pedregal ........................................................................................... 526
Table A.11. Jar types at Pedregal............................................................................................. 528
Table A.12. Bowl and plate types at Pedregal .......................................................................... 533
Table A.13. Tinaja types at Pedregal ........................................................................................ 534
Table A.14. Rallador and other types at Pedregal .................................................................... 536
Table A.15. Ceramic data 1 ...................................................................................................... 537
Table A.16. Ceramic data 2 ...................................................................................................... 585
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. North coast of Peru .................................................................................................. 34
Figure 2.2. General Andean and Jequetepeque Valley chronologies ......................................... 43
Figure 2.3. Map of north coast valleys showing sites mentioned in the text ............................... 44
Figure 2.4. Lower Jequetepeque Valley showing sites mentioned in the text ............................ 45
Figure 4.1. Map of Pedregal ...................................................................................................... 82
Figure 4.2. Sector E (above) and Sector C (below) .................................................................... 84
Figure 4.3. Typical profile from Sector E (PP-24) ....................................................................... 85
Figure 4.4. Selected Late Moche vessels. a-c) platform ollas; d-i) jars; j) tinaja ......................... 85
Figure 4.5. North profile, PP-22 (Sector C, Area 3) .................................................................... 87
Figure 4.6. Owl design from Moche face-neck jars ..................................................................... 87
Figure 4.7. LIP residential (Sector A) and public (Sector B) areas ............................................. 89
Figure 4.8. Sector A showing units excavated ............................................................................ 91
Figure 4.9. Sector A, Area 2 showing units excavated ............................................................... 91
Figure 4.10. Planview of Unit 1 showing banquetas ................................................................... 93
Figure 4.11. East wall of Unit 1 showing mixed adobe and stone construction .......................... 93
Figure 4.12. Profile view of burnt maize offering, Unit 1 ............................................................. 95
Figure 4.13. Plan view of Unit 4, Floor 2 showing hearth and other features ............................. 95
Figure 4.14. Complete vessel in situ ........................................................................................... 97
Figure 4.15. Sector A, Area 4 showing units excavated ............................................................. 97
xvi
Figure 4.16. Sector A, Area 4, Unit 6 showing plastered storage pit ........................................ 100
Figure 4.17. Sector A, Area 4, PP-28 showing round pits cut into sterile ................................. 100
Figure 4.18. Sector A, Area 6 showing units excavated ........................................................... 101
Figure 4.19. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 1 showing early banqueta ................................................. 102
Figure 4.20. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 2 showing artifact-dense fill ............................................... 103
Figure 4.21. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 5, Level 9 showing features .............................................. 104
Figure 4.22. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 5 showing subdivisions ..................................................... 105
Figure 4.23. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 5 profile ............................................................................. 105
Figure 4.24. Sector A, Area 6, showing juxtaposition of road and LIP compound .................... 107
Figure 4.25. Lambayeque, Chimú, and Chimú-Inka fineware sherds from Pedregal ............... 109
Figure 4.26. Stratigraphic division between early and late LIP in Sector A, Area 6, Unit 2....... 109
Figure 4.27. Sector B showing units excavated ........................................................................ 111
Figure 4.28. Platform 1 profiles ................................................................................................. 113
Figure 4.29. Platform 2, plan view of looter’s cut (Profile 4) ..................................................... 114
Figure 4.30. Lower Jequetepeque Valley showing location of prehispanic roads. Redrawn from
Hecker and Hecker (1990) ........................................................................................................ 116
Figure 4.31. View of road north from Pedregal ......................................................................... 117
Figure 4.32. Sector D Area 1 PP-1 profile showing road and post holes .................................. 117
Figure 5.1. Domestic compound in Sector A, Area 2, Pedregal ............................................... 121
Figure 5.2. Hearth feature, Sector A, Area 2, Unit 4 ................................................................. 124
Figure 5.3. Typical house plan in 1940s Moche. Redrawn from Gillin (1947:Figure 4) ............ 125
Figure 5.4. Selected household tools from Pedregal: a) modified camelid metapodial; b) lithic
grinding tool; c) copper needles; d) lithic and ceramic spindle whorls; e) copper tweezers; f)
wood spindle ............................................................................................................................. 127
xvii
Figure 5.5. Plan view of Commoner Room Group 75 at Pacatnamú. Redrawn from Gumerman
(1991:Figure 2.7) ...................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 5.6. Plan view of Room Complexes 1-4, Unit BJ, SIAR. Redrawn from Topic
(1982:Figure 7.2) ...................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 6.1. Partial desiccated guanábana ................................................................................ 146
Figure 6.2. Map of the eastern Pampa de Faclo showing location of fields and seed beds
(redrawn from Eling 1987:Figure 56) ........................................................................................ 147
Figure 6.3. Pampa de Faclo field systems ................................................................................ 148
Figure 6.4. Maize proportions in early and late LIP .................................................................. 154
Figure 6.5. Cotton proportions in early and late LIP ................................................................. 156
Figure 6.6. Wild and domesticated species in early and late LIP ............................................. 157
Figure 6.7. Comparison of modern perro viringo mandible (below) and partial archaeological
mandible from Pedregal (above) ............................................................................................... 162
Figure 6.8. Bullet graphs showing proportions of total faunal assemblage (NISP) by group in the
early and late LIP, Sector A ...................................................................................................... 165
Figure 6.9. Proportions of suco and anchoveta in early and late LIP fish assemblages ........... 172
Figure 6.10. Comparison of Late Moche and LIP fish assemblages......................................... 174
Figure 6.11. Fish NISP by habitat in LIP and Moche occupations of Pedregal ........................ 175
Figure 6.12. Proportions of Donax and Polinices in early and late LIP shellfish assemblages . 182
Figure 6.13. ‘Donut stones’ from Pedregal in production (below) and with usewear traces
(above) showing relation to clodbreaker (wini) (redrawn from Rivero Lluque 2005) ................. 188
Figure 6.14. Paleteada production, July 2007, Pay Pay, Jequetepeque Valley, Peru. ............. 192
Figure 7.1. Grinding stone and hearth in a middle Jequetepeque Valley house ...................... 196
Figure 7.2. Maize harvester in the middle Jequetepeque Valley .............................................. 198
Figure 7.3. Cotton seeds, pods, and fiber from Pedregal ......................................................... 199
xviii
Figure 7.4. Potato harvest in Guzmango, Cajamarca (Photo by Howard Tsai) ........................ 200
Figure 7.5. Large batán (Photo by Bruning, in Schaedel 1988) ................................................ 202
Figure 7.6. Small grinding stone from Pedregal ........................................................................ 203
Figure 7.7. Cob-kernel ratios at Pedregal and Pacatnamú ....................................................... 209
Figure 7.8. Dog skeleton, with identified elements at Pedregal highlighted in gray .................. 212
Figure 7.9. Camelid skeleton, divided into five ‘meat packets’ (after Aldenderfer 1998), with
identified elements at Pedregal highlighted in gray .................................................................. 215
Figure 7.10. Dog humerus showing cutmarks .......................................................................... 217
Figure 7.11. Camelid astragalus showing cutmarks ................................................................. 217
Figure 7.12. Ollas from Pedregal. a) complete carinated olla with textile covering mouth (not to
scale); b) Lambayeque-style olla with high sinuous neck; c) LIP carinated olla with press-molded
band; d) mold-made, reduction fired olla with wave design ...................................................... 235
Figure 7.13. Proportions of selected vessel forms in early and late LIP ceramic assemblages 237
Figure 7.14. Tazon rims and bases from Pedregal. a) white with red interior paint; b) press-
molded exterior; c) white with red interior and exterior paint; d) low base; e) high base .......... 239
Figure 7.15. Plates from Pedregal. a) reduction-fired plate with press-molded bottom; reduction-
fired plate with holes likely used to attach a cover .................................................................... 240
Figure 7.16. Tinajas from Pedregal. a) incised circle design; b) incised lines; c) incised design
.................................................................................................................................................. 241
Figure 7.17. Rallador from Pedregal ......................................................................................... 243
Figure 7.18. Example of spinning from the middle Jequetepeque Valley ................................. 249
Figure 7.19. Selected spindle whorls from Pedregal ................................................................ 249
Figure 7.20. Textile fragment from Pedregal ............................................................................ 252
Figure 8.1. Profile view of burnt maize offering in Unit 1 .......................................................... 259
Figure 8.2. Spondylus offering, Area 2, Unit 1 .......................................................................... 260
xix
Figure 8.3. Spondylus and Nectandra offering, Area 4, Unit 3 ................................................. 261
Figure 8.4. Hair bundle offerings ............................................................................................... 262
Figure 8.5. Platforms 1 and 2 at Pedregal ................................................................................ 264
Figure 8.6. Adobes from Platform 2 surface ............................................................................. 266
Figure 8.7. Selected beads from Sector B ................................................................................ 268
Figure 8.8. Feathered headband from Sector B ....................................................................... 268
Figure 8.9. Pyroengraved mate from Sector B ......................................................................... 269
Figure 8.10. Camelid NISP as a proportion of faunal assemblages (excluding fish) in Sectors A
and B......................................................................................................................................... 272
Figure 8.11. Camelid meat packets by proportion of identified elements in Sectors A and B... 272
Figure 8.12. Selected vessel class proportions in Sectors A and B .......................................... 274
Figure 9.1. Scatterplot showing presence/absence of spindle whorls ...................................... 286
Figure 9.2. Scatterplot showing total cotton parts ..................................................................... 287
Figure 9.3. Scatterplot showing division of contexts by olla proportion .................................... 287
Figure 9.4. Faunal assemblage proportions by area in Sector A .............................................. 293
Figure 9.5. Shellfish habitat by area in Sector A ....................................................................... 294
Figure 9.6. Donax and Polinices proportions by sector ............................................................ 297
Figure 9.7. Resources and ecosystems exploited by Pedregal residents ................................ 300
Figure A.1 Carination measurements ....................................................................................... 518
Figure A.2. Ceramic drawing key ………………………………………………………………….518
Figure A.3. Type B ollas ............................................................................................................ 519
Figure A.4. Type C ollas ........................................................................................................... 520
Figure A.5. Examples of paleteado motifs ................................................................................ 521
Figure A.6. Examples of press-molded bands .......................................................................... 521
Figure A.7. Type D ollas ........................................................................................................... 522
xx
Figure A.8. Type G ollas ........................................................................................................... 524
Figure A.9. Type H ollas ........................................................................................................... 524
Figure A.10. Type J ollas .......................................................................................................... 525
Figure A.11. Jars A-C ............................................................................................................... 527
Figure A.12. Type F jar sherds ................................................................................................. 528
Figure A.13. Type E jars ........................................................................................................... 529
Figure A.14. Bowls B and C ...................................................................................................... 531
Figure A.15. Bowl bases ........................................................................................................... 531
Figure A.16. Bowl D .................................................................................................................. 532
Figure A.17. Tinajas A and B .................................................................................................... 534
Figure A.18. Rallador sherds .................................................................................................... 535
Figure A.19. Rallador types ...................................................................................................... 535
xxi
PREFACE
I carried out this dissertation research with the generous support of many individuals and
institutions. Much intellectual and logistical groundwork for this project was laid during my 2003-
2005 participation in the Proyecto Arqueológico Farfán, under the direction of Carol Mackey and
César Jáuregui. Thanks to past members of Team Farfán, especially Gabriela Cervantes, Hugo
Ikehara, César Jáuregui, Abby Levine, Angela Pacheco, Regina Richter, Bill Sapp, Jorge
Terrones, Howard Tsai, and Enrique Zavaleta, for their support and friendship over the years. I
owe a particular debt of gratitude to Carol Mackey. From the first season I worked with her, to
my dissertation year when we shared a field house, and throughout the writing phase, she has
been a source of inspiration, illumination, advice, and support both moral and academic.
During the fieldwork phase of my dissertation project, I was lucky to be able to assemble
a field crew of extremely high quality. The project’s director, Jorge Terrones Cevallos, was
tireless in working with me to assemble, carry out, and write up the project, and indispensable in
dealing with the various challenges of directing our first project. Gabriela Cervantes
Quequezana’s thoughtful and meticulous work, in the field and the lab, was also essential.
Working with such good friends and talented archaeologists as Jorge and Gabi took much
weight off my shoulders during the field season.
Also stellar were the contributions of Lawrence University undergraduate students
Kelsey Lutz and Kelsey Grubbs and my sister Laurel Cutright. Thanks also to Sarah Taylor for
her help in the field, and to César Jáuregui, Santos Romero, and Evelyn Flores for their help in
xxii
the lab. In the field, I counted on the skilled and good-natured help of Segundo Cabanillas Celis,
Pedro Ibarrola Cáceres, José Palacios Jave, Wilson Palacios Jave, David Silva Moncada, and
Saúl Vargas Atalaya. Sr. Mariano López-Haya and his wife were responsible and trustworthy
guardians of the site and our equipment when we were not in the field.
In Pacasmayo, thanks to Lilian and Ruth Ugas Jaime for help keeping the house clean
and for washing and labeling countless sherds. I am especially indebted to Lili and her family,
who invited me to birthdays and parrilladas, kept my things safe while I was gone, and generally
opened their home to me when I was in Pacasmayo. I am also grateful to the Bazán family and
others in Pay Pay for their heartfelt hospitality and for helping me better understand life in the
middle valley. Thanks to Sr. Carlos Vergara for renting me his house, to Sr. Mario at Katcin for
feeding us many delicious lunches, and to everyone at the Estación for being so friendly and
welcoming over the years, and for serving up so many cold Pilsen Trujillos over the years.
In Trujillo, Victor Vásquez Sánchez and Teresa Rosales Tham of the Universidad
Nacional de Trujillo and ARQUEOBIOS analyzed organic remains, lent their insight into the
zooarchaeology and archaeobotany of the coast, and arranged for me to give two talks at the
UNT. My perspective on the ecology and archaeology of the north coast has been enriched by
my conversations with them and with Jonathan Kent in Trujillo and the Chao Valley.
2006 fieldwork at Pedregal was approved by Resolución 804/INC and carried out under
the supervision of Jesus Briceño at the INC-La Libertad. Materials from Pedregal were stored at
Huaca el Dragón under the supervision of Evelyn Flores. I gratefully acknowledge the support of
a Wenner-Gren Individual Research Grant (#7413), a Fulbright IIE fellowship, and a Social
Science Research Council Individual Dissertation Research Fellowship, and especially thank
the Lima Fulbright office for being so welcoming and helpful throughout my stay in Peru. From
2003-2005, my predissertation summer research was supported by University of Pittsburgh
xxiii
Department of Anthropology Small Grants and Center for Latin American Studies Summer
Research Grants.
At the University of Pittsburgh, I have been fortunate to work with professors who have
challenged me to develop my own ideas and supported my intellectual and professional
endeavors in a warm, collegial environment. During various stages of my career at Pitt, I have
benefited greatly from conversations with Kathy Allen, Olivier de Montmollin, Bryan Hanks, and
Rich Scaglion. I am particularly indebted my committee members, especially Jim Richardson,
who first sent me to the Jequetepeque and has pointed me toward so many useful resources
through the years; Dick Drennan, whose thoughtful guidance and support began with Data I and
continued through our current publication project; and my advisor Marc Bermann. My
dissertation and my own development as a scholar owe a great deal to my conversations with
Marc over the past seven years.
My ideas about the Jequetepeque Valley, the Andes, and wider theoretical questions
have been challenged and enriched though conversations with many talented colleagues,
especially including Ilana Johnson, Abby Levine, Enrique López-Hurtado, Bill Locasio, Alex
Martín, Adam Menzies, Scott Palumbo, Gabriel Prieto, Tim Sullivan, Edward Swenson, Sarah
Taylor, and John Warner. I must say that those conversations that took place over beers on the
balcony of the Estación were particularly edifying.
My parents and siblings have offered moral support and tangible assistance—my sister
spent two months helping in the field and my mother drew Figure 9.7—through the entire
dissertation process. I owe more than I can say to true friends, especially Megan Hamm, Leigh
Hartmann, Lauren Herckis, and Annie and Max Kellogg-Krieg, who have helped me stay
focused, motivated, and sane over the past seven years. Finally, I thank Howard Tsai for our
many conversations about Jequetepeque Valley archaeology, Conrad and Nabokov, and life in
the Andes, and for always reminding me how lucky we are to do this for a living.
xxiv
1.0 INTRODUCTION: FOOD, FAMILY, AND EMPIRE
Eating is the most human of activities. Animals feed, guided by instincts, but for humans eating
is a social encounter that draws on deeply rooted cultural ideals about what is appropriate to eat
and how it should be prepared and served. Eating is central to human domesticity, so much so
that some researchers place food sharing at the origins of family life a million years ago, when
Homo erectus females began cooking tubers to keep males in pair-bonded relationships
(Wrangham et al. 1999). Foodways serve to unite and divide, to draw social distinctions, and to
underscore shared traditions. Thus meals are microcosms of many of the interactions and
processes of interest to anthropologists.
Foodways were at the heart of the domestic economy in premodern societies.
Production and consumption of food were primary household tasks, and the need to provision
the household structured the strategies, organization, and deployment of domestic labor. The
effort devoted to food preparation alone could be considerable; for example in maize-growing
societies, women might spend several hours each day grinding maize, and up to 8-9 hours a
day at the grindstone during the harvest (Martin 2000). Too, food preparation and consumption
are cross-culturally strongly gendered activities, and, as such, they express the gender roles
and divisions of labor that underlie household social organization.
For these reasons, cuisine, broadly defined, has recently emerged as a particularly
useful construct through which to explore sociocultural processes (Bray 2003c; Dietler and
1
Hayden 2001; Gumerman 1997a; Mintz and DuBois 2002; Miracle and Milner 2002; Parker
Pearson 2003; Wiessner and Schiefenhövel 1996). Culinary choices, such as what to eat, how
to prepare it, and how (and with whom) to consume it, potentially provide a particularly valuable
window through which to view multiple dimensions of societal change. A culinary approach,
therefore, can generate insights into traditional subjects of archaeological inquiry such as
political economy and status, while also permitting exploration of agency, practice, and gender
relations within households. Recent studies show the potential of such an approach for
investigating household economy (Hastorf 1990; Hough 1999), gender dynamics (Crown 2000;
Gero 1992, Hastorf 1991), status/class differences (Dietler 2001; Gumerman 1991; Welch and
Scarry 1995), ethnicity (Meadows 1999), and local-state interaction (Bray 2003a, 2003b). In
particular, the study of cuisine can bring into focus how gender shapes household responses to
overarching politico-economic shifts (Brumfiel 1991; Hastorf 1991; Lightfoot et al.1998;
Meadows 1999).
1.1.1 A household view of Chimú expansion
The regional political and economic transformations accompanying the expansion of the
prehispanic Chimú state along the north coast of Peru offer an excellent context in which to
examine change and continuity in domestic processes. This thesis discusses domestic life and
culinary practice at Pedregal, a small rural settlement in the Jequetepeque Valley, as it was
incorporated into the Chimú state in the 14th century A.D. Excavations in household units and
midden deposits at Pedregal and analysis of botanical, faunal, lithic, and ceramic remains were
employed to establish a basic understanding of cuisine and domestic practice in the
Jequetepeque and reconstruct the organization of food processing, preparation, and
2
consumption in households before and after Chimú conquest. Because Pedregal was occupied
during the Late Moche, Lambayeque, and Chimú periods, it was a particularly appropriate site
at which to examine the transition to Chimú rule in the Jequetepeque. Specifically, I wanted to
know whether domestic activities and cuisine changed during the period of Chimú domination.
Did the focus, intensity, and spatial organization of women’s and men’s domestic labor change,
suggesting a reorganization of intrahousehold gender relations after Chimú conquest? Did shifts
in household food use, particularly in status-related feasting or household surplus, reflect
changes in the political and economic autonomy of households integrated into the Chimú
system?
In investigating how Pedregal household organization responded to Chimú state
strategies, I had several goals. One goal was to document the impact of Chimú conquest on
local domestic economy. Such a “view from below” of Chimú conquest contributes to our
understanding of Chimú expansion, the political economy of the Chimú state, and the
relationships that linked subject households into the overarching Chimú political system. The
strategies adopted by the Chimú and other pre-Inka expansive polities have often, implicitly or
explicitly, been viewed as operating according to the Inka model. A view from below thus also
allows me to evaluate the extent to which Chimú imperialism followed Inka patterns as observed
in the Mantaro Valley and other cases. Finally, I was interested in evaluating wider models of
how the political economies of ancient agrarian empires extracted and mobilized surplus by
looking at the effects of Chimú extractive strategies on provincial Jequetepeque households.
While I wanted to know what the Chimú conquest of Pedregal told us about the Chimú, I
was also interested in what the effects of Chimú conquest could tell us about how late
prehispanic households—as adaptive units—organized themselves and responded to change.
Thus a second goal was to place Pedregal as a case study in wider theoretical debates about
3
domestic economy and patterns of household change. While many approaches to domestic
economy have treated the household as a “black box,” such models can be inadequate for
understanding or explaining some aspects of household dynamics because they pay insufficient
attention to the internal processes governing decision-making and labor allocation within
households. Archaeological and ethnographic studies (Brumfiel 1991; Hastorf 1991; Wilk 1989)
have suggested how changes in domestic economy are influenced by gendered intrahousehold
strategies, and recursively, how outside demands and opportunities shape intrahousehold
relationships and division of labor.
Yet a third goal of this research was to explore the extent to which a culinary approach
could illuminate dimensions of domestic variability and kinds of household change that would
not be apparent in approaches emphasizing other aspects of the archaeological record. This
goal pushed me to understand how domestic life was experienced by Pedregal household
members. Such an aim, often referred to as “peopling” the household, has become common in
post-processual household archaeology, where it is held up as a worthwhile objective in its own
right (Robin 2003). However, I prefer to see this objective as a step towards a better
appreciation of how culinary practices reproduce or reinforce continuity in some aspects of
household behavior while reflecting or contributing to changes in household strategies and the
organization of domestic labor. This focus on daily culinary practice leads us to consider how
actors within the household made decisions within the range of potential choices available to
them. Ultimately, we should be interested in the potential of this approach for explaining, rather
than simply describing, household change.
4
1.2 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PREHISPANIC ANDEAN EMPIRES
The relationship between ruling elites and subject populations is one of the traditional central
questions in studies of ancient states and empires. How were subject populations administered,
especially in the case of expansive empires that conquered and incorporated culturally and
geographically distinct provinces? In particular, how were empires able to access the surplus
produced by these populations and mobilize it to complete state projects or fill state coffers, and
how did this surplus extraction affect subject households? Ancient empires financed costly
endeavors like military conquest in a variety of ways, including directly administering production,
mobilizing labor for state projects, and extracting surplus from conquered populations as tax or
tribute. Thus control over staple production itself and the mobilization of staple surplus are
essential elements in the political economy of many ancient agrarian states. The Inka were no
exception, and this component of their political economy has been studied extensively,
providing an important comparative portrait of a non-market, non-monetary political economy
(D’Altroy 1992; D’Altroy and Earle 1985; Levine 1992; Murra 1980; Stanish 1992).
Ancient empires have employed various strategies to control provincial populations,
including military force, political intervention, economic extraction, and ideological control.
Researchers have frequently drawn a distinction between territorial and hegemonic empires
based on how directly they administered subject populations (D’Altroy 1992; Hassig 1985,
1992), but more recent approaches have identified these two formulations as extreme points on
a continuum between more direct and more indirect forms of domination (Alconini 2008).
Imperial investment in direct or indirect strategies varied according to multiple factors, including
the needs of the state, the desirable resources available in each province, the existing level of
sociopolitical complexity in the conquered territory, its distance from the imperial heartland, and
5
the response of the local population; even within the same province, imperial strategies could
change through time (D’Altroy 1992; Morrison 2001; Schreiber 1992; Sinopoli 1994; Stanish
1997).
In many cases, the expansion of empires was accompanied by the intensified production
of agricultural staples and other goods in the imperial heartland and in conquered provinces
(Alcock et al. 2001; Blanton 1996; Sinopoli 1994; Smith 2004). Surplus production was directed
toward provisioning growing urban populations in imperial centers and financing imperial
projects, such as military campaigns and the construction of infrastructure. Like strategies of
direct/indirect control, imperial extractive policies varied among conquered provinces, based on
variables like transport costs and resource distribution. For example, the Aztec empire
intensified agricultural production and extracted labor from local populations in the imperial
heartland, but increased the production of portable tribute items in more distant, peripheral
provinces (Smith and Berdan 1996).
Blanton (1996) argues that intensification of staple and craft production in an imperial
system can alter patterns of regional specialization and interdependence. For example, in the
Aztec case discussed above, the empire’s intensification of agricultural production in some
provinces and its extraction of non-food tribute in others created new patterns of regional
occupational specialization and ultimately a more economically integrated regional system
(Blanton 1996). According to Sinopoli (1994:166), such intensification also has the potential to
significantly alter community structure and the organization of labor at the local level.
Incorporation and administration would affect local economies as a result of the top-down
processes like state demands of tribute and labor discussed above. However, “local and
individual responses to incorporation into larger political, economic, and prestige networks”
(Sinopoli 1994:171) would also affect the way local economies responded to imperial conquest.
6
The mobilization of labor and extraction of surplus by ancient empires could thus have
had a variety of effects on provincial domestic economies. Households could adopt new
productive activities to meet the demands of extractive states or begin to specialize in the
production of a particular good. Concurrently or independently, the production of some goods
might move from the household domain to the supra-household level, where the state could
exert direct control over production. In these situations, the range of household productive
activities would change with incorporation into the empire. These changes could lead to a loss
of household economic autonomy and greater dependence on supra-household economic
organizations. Another way for households to meet state demands would be to intensify staple
production to produce more of the same crops they were already growing, or to re-focus staple
production to emphasize different products. Likewise, households could intensify or re-focus
craft production. In these situations, the range of household productive activities would stay the
same, but we would observe changes in the scope of production—in the intensity of particular
productive activities or in the relative importance of different productive activities. These
changes might be less likely to result in the loss of household economic independence. These
two patterns would look very different archaeologically, but each illustrates one way provincial
households might be resilient in the face of the demands of extractive imperial economies. To
illustrate in concrete terms how imperial extractive strategies may have impacted the domestic
economies of provincial households in the Andes, I now turn to a brief review of the Inka political
economy.
7
1.2.1 The Inka model
Because of the wealth of documentary evidence describing Inka political and economic
structures, we know more about the political economy of the Inka empire than that of the Chimú
or other pre-Inka empires. Many researchers have stressed how Inka political economy was
shaped by uniquely Andean traits such as verticality, institutionalized reciprocity, and the lack of
a market economy (Martin et al. in press; Morris 1979; Murra 1972; Stanish 1997; Van Buren
1996). Consequently, the Inka case has often been treated as a general Andean model which
can be projected back onto pre-Inka polities. However, recent work, especially on the Wari, has
questioned the applicability of the Inka model to all Andean cases and stressed variation among
Andean empires (Cook and Glowacki 2001; Isbell 2004; Jennings 2006; Marcone in press;
McEwan 2005; Topic and Topic 2000). Even within the Inka empire, recent research has
emphasized the diversity of imperial strategies and the variability in their impact on local
populations (Alconini 2008; Mackey 2006; Malpass 1993). These studies do not necessarily
detract from the utility of the Inka model as an analytical construct. However, it may be an over-
simplification to think of a single ‘Inka model’ that can be applied to other Andean societies, and
we should not assume that the Chimú economy necessarily followed the Inka model. Rather, as
in the present study, we need to investigate the extent to which the political economies of the
Chimú and other pre-Inka polities resembled this model.
As an agrarian state, Inka imperial expansion may have been motivated largely by the
need of each successive Inka ruler to lay claim to land and labor to support his imperial
administration (Conrad 1981). In the non-market economy of the Andes, Inka control of staple
production was largely based on a corvée labor tax, where subjects worked state lands and
performed other tasks on a rotating basis (D’Altroy and Earle 1985; Stanish 1997). The empire’s
8
claim to this labor was based on shared Andean principles of reciprocity and collective labor
(Murra 1980; Stanish 1992, 1997). The state also established communities of labor specialists
such as aqllakuna and yanakuna to produce valuable goods such as textiles for state use
(Costin 1996; D’Altroy 2002). The goods thus produced were collected and stored in large
storage installations throughout the empire (Levine 1992). State control over the storage of
staple goods was an effective way to centralize political and economic power and control local
economies, and allowed the Inka to finance state projects in different provinces without incurring
the costs of transporting bulky staples over long distances (D’Altroy 1992; D’Altroy and Earle
1985). At the same time, the Inka used wealth items such as cloth to finance relations with
subject elites (Costin 1996, 1998; Gose 2000).
The Inka political economy relied on commensal politics to mobilize labor parties and
cement alliances with elites (Bray 2003a, 2003b; Morris 1979). Following Andean traditions of
reciprocity, the Inka provisioned labor parties with maize beer (chicha), which allowed the state
to convert maize, an agricultural staple, into labor (Jennings 2004; Morris 1979). The Inka also
used chicha and distinctive Cuzco polychrome ceramics in displays of state hospitality to
provincial elites (Bray 2003a, 2003b). Combining staple and wealth finance, investing in
provincial storage facilities, and expressing state control through the idiom of reciprocal
hospitality allowed the Inka considerable flexibility in supporting state personnel and projects,
buffering regional agricultural shortfalls, and maintaining vertical ties between the empire’s
rulers and regional elites.
Classic views of the Inka empire, such as the one advanced by Murra (1972, 1980,
1984), suggest that the Inka ruled largely indirectly and mobilized local labor by drawing on pre-
existing systems of reciprocal labor obligations. Since the Inka did not impose new systems but
rather co-opted existing economic networks, household economies in subjugated populations
9
were not significantly reorganized. In fact, Murra argued that “the diagnostic, all-important,
Andean trait characterizing these [Inka] standards was that the larder of the peasant remain
untouched” (Murra 1984:79). In this case, only local elite activities would be strongly affected by
Inka conquest, while rural households would remain relatively stable and economically self-
sufficient.
Because the Inka empire was financed largely by staple goods extracted from
conquered populations, however, we might expect incorporation into the empire to be
accompanied by intensified and reorganized production as well as changes in many other
aspects of daily life at the local level. The most comprehensive examination of the effects of
Inka conquest on household life was carried out in the Mantaro Valley. This study was
designed, in part, to test the extent to which the Inka reached into the “larders” of conquered
populations, and has included exemplary studies of the effects of conquest on local domestic
economy, diet, and gender relations (Costin and Earle 1989; D’Altroy and Hastorf 2001; Hastorf
1990, 1991).
In the Mantaro Valley, the Inka reshaped local Wanka political structure and stimulated
surplus production of maize. They constructed a major provincial center at Hatun Xauxa and
ruled directly through Inka administrators. Under Inka rule, the population shifted from
defensible hilltop settlements to the valley floors, closer to areas suited to maize production
(Hastorf 1993, 2001). The Inka constructed large storage complexes throughout the valley to
store the surplus maize extracted from the local population and produced on state lands
(D’Altroy 1992, 2001).
The findings of the Mantaro study suggest that, in doing so, “the Inka entered [the
Wanka] local economic sphere, their houses, and their larders, encouraging them or forcing
them to join the Inka symbolic and economic system, affecting both their internal economies as
10
well as their sociopolitical systems” (Hastorf 1990:285-6). Agricultural production, particularly
maize production, intensified in the Inka period (Hastorf 1990, 2001; Russell 1988). Maize
processing and consumption also increased in Wanka households after Inka conquest (Hastorf
1990, 1991, 2001). Some ceramic production became more nucleated in the hands of
specialized producers in the Inka period (Costin 2001). Narrowed differences in meat
consumption (Hastorf 2001, Sandefur 2001) and distribution of metal and other wealth goods
(Owen 2001) between elite and commoner households indicate that socioeconomic
differentiation decreased under Inka rule, even as local elites sought to integrate Inka elements
into status displays (D’Altroy 2001; DeMarrais 2001). Women’s labor loads increased as maize
processing was intensified, even as their participation in political feasting may have been
circumscribed (Hastorf 1991). Despite these changes, D’Altroy (2001:334-5) points out that
Wanka III households remained largely self-sufficient, consuming local resources (Hastorf 2001)
and manufacturing lithic implements for household use (Russell 1988).
The tribute demands of imperial political economies, even in the Inka case, may not
always have led to the imposition of a new extractive structure on top of pre-existing political
and economic systems. In some areas, the Inka may simply have demanded some of the tribute
already flowing to local elites. However, the Mantaro Valley case shows that, at least in some
situations, direct Inka rule dramatically reshaped many aspects of provincial economic and
political organization. This case also helps generate expectations for the potential effects on
household life of incorporation into an over-arching imperial system in other cases, such the
Chimú conquest of the Jequetepeque Valley.
11
1.2.2 Chimú imperialism
Northern coastal Peru witnessed the successive expansion and collapse of the Moche,
Lambayeque/Sicán, Chimú, and Inka states. Around A.D. 900, the Chimú state coalesced in the
Moche Valley and eventually expanded to encompass much of what is today the northern coast
of Peru, reshaping the political and social landscape (Moseley and Day 1982; Moseley and
Cordy-Collins 1990; Ravines 1980; Rowe 1948). One likely motivation for Chimú expansion was
to access agricultural resources after production in the Moche-Chicama heartland reached its
maximum extent (Von Hagen and Morris 1998:152-3). The concentration of controlled-access
storage space at the Chimú paramount center, Chan Chan, and its association with probable
administrative architecture (U-shaped audiencias) suggest that primary functions of the state
administrative apparatus included accumulating and overseeing agricultural surplus and other
goods (Day 1982; Klymyshyn 1990).
The strategies employed by the Chimú to administer their empire are of particular
concern to recent and ongoing research (Keatinge and Conrad 1983; Mackey 1987; Mackey
and Klymyshyn 1990; Moore 1992; Topic 2003). In the Casma Valley, the Chimú state
reorganized settlement patterns to intensify agricultural production and resettled some of the
population in administrative centers (Koschmieder and Vega-Centeno 1996; Mackey and
Klymyshyn 1990). Based on work at the administrative centers of Farfán and Talambo in the
Jequetepeque Valley, Keatinge and Conrad (1983) have argued that the Chimú employed a
direct strategy of control in the valley, managing agricultural production, irrigation systems, and
the flow of goods and information. Clear changes in Jequetepeque Valley agricultural
infrastructure and settlement patterns have also been argued to represent Chimú investment in
intensive agricultural production (Dillehay 2001; Dillehay and Kolata 2004). This evidence hints
12
that, as in the Mantaro Valley case, rural domestic economies may have been impacted by
intensification and reorganization of production directly controlled by the Chimú imperial
administration.
However, it is also possible that key elements of the Inka model, such as laying claim to
reciprocal labor obligations and mobilizing stored surplus to support provincial administration, do
not completely apply to the Chimú case. Storage at Farfán and other provincial administrative
centers is extremely limited when compared to expansive Inka installations like Huánuco Pampa
or the Mantaro Valley colca system (D’Altroy and Hastorf 1984; Mackey 1987; Morris and
Thompson 1985). This disparity suggests that the Chimú could not have sustained an Inka-style
staple finance system, at least at the scale of the Inka model. Instead, it is possible that the
Chimú ruled indirectly, through local lords. Attached craft specialists in the SIAR at Chan Chan
(Topic 1982), and later recruited from the conquered Sicán state, produced prestige items that
could have been used to strengthen vertical ties between Chimú rulers and local lords. In this
case, most direct post-Chimú conquest changes would have been restricted to the households
of the local elite. Production by commoners might have intensified as local elites passed new
tribute demands placed on them by imperial administrators on to their subject populations.
However, in comparison to the case of Mantaro Valley residents under the Inka, in this scenario
daily life in local households would remain relatively stable following Chimú conquest.
Thus the Chimú could have intruded into the peasant larder, by intensifying and
reorganizing staple production or by undercutting household economic autonomy. Alternately,
Chimú conquest could have had minimal impact on non-elite households. In order to explore
these two broad alternatives, I investigated the nature of social, political, and economic change
in households in the village of Pedregal as the Jequetepeque Valley was incorporated into to
the Chimú empire. Pedregal’s location, adjacent to extensive field systems near both the
13
valley’s pre-Chimú center and the Chimú provincial administrative center, makes it likely that
Pedregal residents were involved in agricultural production and would have felt any
reorganization imposed by the Chimú. If the Chimú pursued a strategy similar to that adopted by
the Inka in the Mantaro Valley, we might expect to see clear changes in the scope or intensity of
household production at Pedregal though the Late Intermediate Period, and related changes in
the social organization of labor within Pedregal households. If local political activities were
supplanted by state politics, we should see feasting and other political activities shift away from
communities like Pedregal toward state installations like nearby Farfán. If, in contrast, the
Chimú ruled indirectly through existing hierarchies, they would have incorporated local lords into
the imperial sphere by hosting exclusionary feasts and distributing prestige items. In this case,
conquest should be most clearly visible in the households of local lords. Aside from a potential
intensification of production, the domestic economy in non-elite communities like Pedregal
should remain relatively unchanged.
1.3 HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AND CONTINUITY
By investigating continuity and change at the household level before and after Chimú conquest
of the Jequetepeque Valley, then, I intend to construct a “view from below” of Chimú
imperialism. Such a view elucidates Chimú strategies of control and surplus extraction by
measuring their effects on local populations. However, the ways in which households responded
to Chimú imperialism would have been shaped not only by the demands imposed by Chimú
administrators, but also by the internal processes governing decision-making and labor
allocation within households. A “view from below” focuses on how Pedregal households
14
adapted to inclusion into the over-arching Chimú order. Thus studying Pedregal households
also represents an opportunity to better understand the household as an adaptive unit, and to
identify the processes and strategies shaping household dynamics.
A strong theme in the literature dealing with the domestic economy in primitive and
peasant societies has been the perceived conservatism of households engaging in subsistence
or “Domestic Mode of Production I” production. In this conception, the domestic economy is
organized to meet the needs of the household and operates according to ideals of self-
sufficiency and economic autonomy (Chayanov 1966; Polanyi 1944; Sahlins 1972), which have
been seen as tending to conserve traditional technologies and production strategies and resist
change. This conservatism has sometimes been viewed as enforced by limits on available
labor, resources, and opportunities, by powerful socioeconomic leveling mechanisms, or by a
strong egalitarian ethos (Barlett 1980; DeWalt 1975; Hirth 1993). Hirth (1993), for example, has
argued that, because of the limited range of economic opportunities in prehistoric societies, past
households were unlikely to adopt new strategies except in conditions of dramatic sociopolitical
or environmental change. In Hirth’s (1993) examination of the data from Central Mexico, the
households that were best situated to take advantage of new economic opportunities by
expanding in size and adding craft production to the range of household activities belonged to
emerging elites. The social organization and productive activities of rural, non-elite households,
in contrast, remained relatively stable, even as social change occurred in other parts of society.
More recently, the household economic autonomy and self-sufficiency inherent in this
conservatism have been viewed as strategies adopted by households to minimize risk, resist
dependence and exploitation, and ensure survival (Halperin 1994:162).
It is clear that households in peasant societies are resilient and adaptive. In the
formulations discussed above, this resiliency lies in the ability of households to resist major
15
change. However, other researchers have argued that household economies are flexible, and
the resiliency of households lies in their ability to change, in order to adapt to changing external
conditions (Netting 1993; Wilk 1989, 1991a, 1991b). Wilk, for example, has argued that
households “may be dynamic and changeable, and presuming stability is a poor way to begin”
(1991a:39). In Wilk’s (1989, 1991b) ethnographic study of household decision-making among
the Kekchi Maya, some farming households responded to increasing integration into market
economies by investing in cash crops or small-scale entrepreneurial ventures, while others did
not. If, as Wilk’s study suggests, the domestic economy is not only resilient but also flexible in
the context of changing external conditions, are there some aspects of the domestic economy
that tend to be more flexible? And how do households reorganize themselves toward surplus
production, Sahlins’ Domestic Mode of Production II— precisely the kind of transition we may be
likely to see in provincial households in the context of extractive imperial strategies?
Archaeologists have begun to address these questions by focusing on documenting
processes of continuity and change in different dimensions of household practice. Recently,
approaches that move inside the “black box” of the household have begun to illustrate the role
of intrahousehold processes, like decision-making and social reproduction, in shaping the
responses of households to changing external conditions.
1.3.1 Multiple dimensions of household change and continuity
As households respond to changing external conditions, it is likely that the rate, extent, and
direction of change will vary among different dimensions of household life. According to Wilk
(1991a), households can be examined in terms of three dimensions of variability: morphology,
productive and reproductive activities, and culture. The causes and rates of change that affect
16
these different dimensions can vary; for example, productive activities may change rapidly,
while household morphology may respond to these changes slowly, and idealized concepts of
gender and age within the household may not change at all (Wilk 1991a:37).
Archaeological examples of such an approach have shown that different dimensions of
household life changed at different paces, sometimes independently from trajectories of change
at regional or state levels. Bermann’s (1993, 1994, 1997) work juxtaposes diachronic changes
in household life at Lukurmata, in the Bolivian altiplano, with the expansion and collapse of the
Tiwanaku state. Integration into the Tiwanaku III and early Tiwanaku IV polity was not
accompanied by changes in household production. Later in the Tiwanaku IV period, patterns of
household production changed and house compounds, which may have represented a new kind
of domestic corporate group, formed (Bermann 1997). Household architecture changed the
most through time, signaling changes in the allocation of space to different activities (Bermann
1994:238). Household artifact assemblages showed the least change, suggesting that the set of
tasks performed in households was relatively stable through time.
By further narrowing focus on the multiple activities within the dimension of household
production and consumption, a more complex view of household economic strategies can also
emerge. For example, Falconer’s (1995) research on household production strategies at the
rural Mesopotamian village of Tell el-Hayyat suggests that these rural households were
concerned with resisting full incorporation into urban systems and ensuring long-term survival,
rather than maximizing economic benefit through specialization and integration into regional
economies. As the regional economy became increasingly tied to emerging urban centers, Tell
el-Hayyat residents balanced a growing focus on production oriented toward the regional market
with strategies, such as increased pig consumption, that allowed them to maintain local
autonomy in the face of increasing demands from urban elites. Some production for exchange
17
was coordinated at the village level by the temple, further buffering the direct integration of
households into the regional economic system. In the case of Tell el-Hayyat, households
evinced considerable flexibility in their productive strategies and daily diet, but changes were
oriented toward the overall maintenance of ideals of autonomy and self-sufficiency at the
household and community level.
This dimensional approach begins to elucidate some of the decisions that were made
about household production, consumption, and the social organization of labor within past
households. More explicitly intrahousehold approaches have begun to focus even more closely
on the role of these internal processes in household behavior.
1.3.2 Intrahousehold processes of continuity and change
Household archaeology has increasingly involved a concern with intrahousehold dynamics,
investigating how interactions and relations of production within households relate to
crosscutting categories such as age and gender and processes of household and community
change (Gero 1992; Gero and Scattolin 2002; Hendon 1997; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Meskell
1998; Sassaman 1999). Rather than treating the household as a ‘black box’, these studies
explore how shifts in household strategies and demands prompt reorganization of gendered
domestic labor patterns and changes in women’s labor and status.
Moving inside the “black box” of the household allows for a more precise, nuanced view
of household change, since the decisions and actions of household members determine how
households respond to changing external conditions. As Wilk (1989:25) suggests, “the different
behavior of Kekchi households can only be explained by what goes on inside them, in the
intimate space of ‘householding’.” In order to understand how households are linked to wider
18
processes and how social and economic aspects of household behavior change over time, it is
necessary to understand what goes on within the household. For example, the allocation of
household labor and resources plays a central role in shaping the response each household
makes to external economic, ecological, and cultural factors. Internal allocation of resources is
one of the elements of the domestic economy most easily controlled by families, and so division
of labor and resource allocation to different activities might be particularly flexible at the
household level. In the Kekchi case, Wilk (1989) determined that some households invested in
cash crops or small-scale entrepreneurial ventures, while other households in the same rural
community did not, because of the different ways in which families managed their household
economies, allocated household resources, and made decisions about the needs of the family.
This case highlights the importance of intrahousehold dynamics in shaping the nature of
household response to change at overarching social scales.
1.3.3 Social reproduction
Recently, some archaeological approaches to continuity and change in domestic life have
focused on the relationships between household life and social reproduction. Bourdieu (1977)
has pointed out that daily routines socialize people into particular rules and structures. From this
perspective, domestic practices are in many cases structured by, or imbued with, deeply
ingrained cultural beliefs about gender roles, family structure, and cuisine. Archaeologists have
used this idea to look at the household as practice (Hendon 1996:56); that is, to view daily
practices performed by social actors as constitutive of social relations. For example, Hodder and
Cessford (2004:30) argue that people at Çatalhöyük were socialized into particular roles and
rules by repeating embodied routines and practices, such as sweeping and replastering floors,
19
within segmented domestic spaces. These repetitive bodily practices were central to the
construction and maintenance of social memory (35-6). If the house, and the daily embodied
practices that take place in the house, are central to the politics of social memory and the
transmission of social rules, then core intrahousehold patterns are not likely to be very
malleable in the face of external change. Instead, changes may be more likely to accommodate
existing beliefs and structures than rather than alter them.
In order to determine how Chimú imperialism was felt by communities and families in the
Jequetepeque, and to elucidate processes of change within Jequetepeque Valley households,
then, my research attempted to move within the “black box” of the household, and to chart
change and continuity in different dimensions of household practice at Pedregal. The emerging
culinary approach in archaeology, which I discuss in the next section, represents a promising
avenue for this kind of research.
1.4 A CULINARY APPROACH TO HOUSEHOLD CHANGE
“Foods may function as symbols, but they do not cease to have a material reality. Concrete
economic change, as it occurs, inexorably restructures kitchen practice, and thus the langue of
cuisine. Still, change does not necessarily imply the loss of cultural identity,” (Weismantel
1988:166).
This quote, from Mary Weismantel’s (1988) ethnography of gender and changing cuisine in
highland Ecuador, highlights the diverse roles of food as a system of symbols as complex as
language, as an expression of cultural identity, and as an economic commodity. Weismantel
20
also raises an issue that is central to this dissertation: the relationship between change and
kitchen practice. A brief review of culinary studies shows that cuisine represents a particularly
fruitful avenue toward investigating how the regional political and economic systems of state-
level societies are negotiated and experienced by communities and families, fleshing out
models of these state institutions and processes, and understanding the activities of family
members within households. In particular, a culinary approach makes it possibly to move inside
the “black box” of the household to explore the interplay of different household tasks and
priorities.
The way that people eat is shaped by more than nutritional requirements. Analyzing only
diet, or the actual varieties and quantities of food consumed, does not allow us to approach how
people use food in multiple social contexts. Cuisine refers to the cultural preferences and rules
for how to prepare, serve, and consume food, which are deeply embedded in social, political,
and religious traditions (Crown 2000:225). Foodways are fundamentally domestic in nature,
since food is most often produced by household labor and prepared and consumed in
household contexts. Yet food, whether as feast, tribute, or daily meal, is also a medium of
political negotiation and a way to establish and express cultural, ethnic, and class distinctions
(Appadurai 1981; Bray 2003a, 2003b; Goody 1982; Greenberg 1996; Gumerman 1997a;
Miracle 2002). By paying attention to domestic culinary practices, it is possible to move beyond
a focus on special politically and ritually charged feasting events (Dietler 2001; Gero 1992;
Hayden 2001) to consider the everyday interplay of domestic practice, political power, and
socio-economic relations.
A culinary approach therefore generates insights into traditional subjects of
archaeological inquiry such as political economy and status, while also permitting exploration of
agency, practice, and gender relations within households. For example, Crown (2000:226)
21
suggests that because of women’s cross-culturally critical role in food preparation, culinary
changes at the household level might often affect women more strongly than men. She points
out that diet and cuisine both tend to be conservative, and culinary change can occur as a result
of changing household labor priorities even when basic dietary components remain the same.
Crown uses trends in grinding stone size and container technology to show how women’s
household workload intensified dramatically as focus on maize increased through time in the
prehispanic US Southwest.
Likewise, Brumfiel (1991) uses evidence of textile production (spindle whorls) and food
preparation (pots and griddles) from Early and Late Aztec sites to argue that domestic activities
in subject households changed to meet state demands of tribute and labor. From the Early to
Late Aztec periods, households in the Aztec heartland showed an increase in comales, or
griddles, as compared to cooking pots. Brumfiel argues that as the Aztec state mobilized labor
for state projects, women prepared more time-consuming, portable foods like tortillas in these
households. In provincial households, on the other hand, cooking methods did not change, but
spindle whorl density increased from the Early to Late Aztec periods, which indicated an
increasing focus on textile production for tribute. Brumfiel’s study shows that women made
decisions about cuisine to manage domestic scheduling tradeoffs in time and labor and
demonstrates how culinary change is related to changing economic demands and broader
political settings. In these cases, archaeologically observed shifts in culinary technology point to
changes in the organization of women’s food processing and preparation activities.
Hastorf (1991) uses skeletal and botanical data from the Mantaro Valley to suggest that
Inka control differentially affected local women’s and men’s daily activities. Bone isotope
analyses reveal that maize consumption increased throughout the local population, but
especially among men, as the gap between commoner and elite diets narrowed. At the same
22
time, the spatial patterning of botanical remains suggests that women’s maize processing
activities became more intense, but also more restricted to certain areas of the household. This
relates to ethnographic evidence from the Andes (Sikkink 1988, 2001) that spatial constriction of
food processing activities might reflect a decline in women’s social position. Thus shifts in
cuisine, the product of household strategies and labor, might be expected to reflect changing
patterns of intrahousehold social relations and economic activities.
Lightfoot et al.’s (1998) investigation of daily culinary activities shows how ideals related
to gender, cuisine, and the organization of domestic labor are reproduced in daily practice, and
how these ideals shape the ways that households respond to wider external change. The
authors document household and community spatial organization and activities at the northern
California colonial site of Fort Ross, where Native Alaskan men were stationed as laborers and
set up households with local women from Californian tribes, and compare them to known Native
Alaskan and Californian patterns from other sites. Their analysis moves from microscalar
evidence of domestic activities like food preparation and trash disposal up to the larger
community scale of settlement layout. They find that Native Californian women and Alaskan
men reproduced familiar patterns of household behavior whenever possible. When new
practices emerged from the colonial encounter, they tended to be organized in traditional ways.
For example, when Native Californian women cooked new kinds of meat familiar to their Native
Alaskan husbands, they used the Native Californian cooking methods they were accustomed to.
In this case, some familiar household routines and practices were conserved, even in
dramatically changing external conditions.
Atalay and Hastorf (2006) provide another compelling example of how culinary activities
can provide a window onto diverse dimensions of daily practice; as they suggest, these “small
but regular nutritive acts…illuminate social life within the settlement over time as individuals,
23
houses, and communities were formed and reformed” (285). Atalay and Hastorf reconstruct the
seasonal round of resource procurement and the way that food was processed, stored,
prepared, and eaten at Çatalhöyük. They suggest that daily and yearly repetition of culinary
practices reproduced social relationships and may have contributed to the marked continuity in
community traditions through the history of occupation at the site. They also trace minute
changes in culinary techniques, such as a shift from indirect to direct heating methods, and
suggest that these changes were linked not only to innovations in culinary technology (the
introduction of ceramics) but also to shifts in household time management strategies and
domestic labor patterns. Atalay and Hastorf’s study shows how “food habitus was reproduced in
all family members through the multiple food task strands woven together by the daily meals,
where everyone learned the taste, tempo, cuisine, and style of Çatalhöyük living” (315). For
Atalay and Hastorf, repeated culinary routines served as an important mechanism of
socialization and social reproduction. By reconstructing the temporal and spatial patterning of
these routines, they are able to more fully reconstruct daily life and culture at Çatalhöyük.
Both within and beyond the household, foodways can be strong markers of identity and
expressions of ethnic or political affiliation (Greenberg 1996; Koschmieder 2004; Meadows
1999). For Weismantel (1988, 1989), daily meals in highland Ecuador reflect women’s
negotiation of their households’ increasing integration into the regional market economy and
their families’ claims to particular ethnic and class identities. Her work, like Atalay and Hastorf’s
(2006), illustrates how everyday meals reproduce social relations and hierarchies at the
household and community level (1988:195). Ethnoarchaeological research from Ecuador
(Bowser 2000; Bowser and Patton 2004) suggests that community political alliances are
negotiated in gendered household space and expressed materially by decorated serving
vessels made for household use. In the wider realm of imperial politics, Bray (2003a, 2003b)
24
argues that the Inka used cuisine and culinary equipment as active markers of ethnic and class
identity and symbols of political power in the provinces. Functional analysis of imperial and local
ceramics shows that in the provinces, stylistically distinct Inka ceramic forms such as aríbalos,
footed ollas, and decorated plates, were those used to serve chicha, meat, and maize during
elite feasts. Bray (2003a) suggests that as this distinctive state assemblage was used for high-
status foods at feasts, it visually and symbolically reinforced ethnic and political difference and
hierarchy.
Because domestic relationships and relationships of political alliance are often
inextricably intertwined (Yanagisako 1979:191), studying domestic culinary practices can reveal
more than simply household organization. Studies of household and cuisine are positioned to
examine relationships between domestic and political economies, investigate how household
members interact with and relate to the broader social universe (Hendon 1996; Robin 2003),
and elucidate dynamics of change at state, local, and household levels. Such studies have the
potential to move inside the ‘black box’ of the household to make visible changes in particular
dimensions of domestic practice or reveal significant continuities in daily household practice
even during periods of rapid social change. To date there has been relatively little problem-
oriented work that relates intrahousehold dynamics and cuisine to overarching political and
economic changes. The exceptions discussed above remind us that everyday household
organization and domestic culinary practice can be sensitive to processes of large-scale social
change, and thus represent a particularly interesting locus from which to view these processes.
25
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In my research at Pedregal, then, I adopt a “view from the kitchen” in order to investigate the
nature of Chimú impact on local households and reconstruct processes of change at the
household level. To investigate specific aspects of continuity and change in domestic culinary
practice at Pedregal, I address the following questions:
1.5.1 Did agricultural production, specifically maize production, intensify under Chimú
rule?
We might expect, as in the Inka case, that incorporation into the overarching state would be
accompanied by increased tribute demands on subject populations. If households at Pedregal
produced more maize during the Chimú period, we would expect to see evidence for increased
production and processing in the form of increased grinding activity (proportionally more or
larger grinding stones) and an increase in the density and ubiquity of macrobotanical maize
remains. Though farming implements such as digging stick weights have been recovered from
Chimú household contexts (Keatinge 1975), at the household level agricultural production is
better judged by botanical remains, especially those from patio areas, which tend to reflect
production rather than consumption (Hastorf 1990:282). If maize was processed before being
removed as tribute, a higher proportion of cobs in relation to kernels should be observed in
midden deposits (Welch and Scarry 1995). To identify these shifts in production, I reconstructed
spatial patterning of activities in domestic contexts and analyze macrobotanical materials
recovered from interior, exterior, and midden deposits.
26
1.5.2 Did patterns of feasting or chicha production shift with incorporation into the
Chimú polity?
Local-level political competition and ceremonial activities may be forestalled or co-opted by a
conquering state, as D’Altroy and Hastorf (2001) noted in the Mantaro Valley. There, feasting
shifted from households to state facilities as local political autonomy declined. Diminished local-
level or household feasting at Pedregal would be indicated by decreasing proportions of feasting
ware, including large preparation vessels and decorated serving vessels, and perhaps in a
decreasing mean size of ollas and plates or bowls. There may also be changes in the scale and
frequency of household chicha production, indicated by changing proportions of large vessels
(tinajas) used to ferment and store chicha and changes in the density and ubiquity of production
debris such as crushed maize (Moore 1989). Shifts in patterns of feasting and chicha production
would thus be visible in the size and proportion of ceramic forms recovered from household and
patio contexts and the distribution of macrobotanical remains.
1.5.3 Did households adopt forms of Chimú culinary practice?
As households are incorporated into new social systems, we might expect processes of
enculturation to spur new patterns in cuisine and household practice. In order to evaluate how
cuisine at Pedregal may have shifted to emulate cuisine in the Chimú heartland, food
preparation equipment and techniques at Pedregal will be compared to patterns observed in the
Moche Valley (Keatinge 1975; Pozorski 1982; Topic 1982; Topic and Moseley 1981) and in
other areas of the empire (Koschmieder 2004; Moore 1985). One archaeological correlate for
such processes would be an increase in the proportion of Chimú vessel types or decorations,
27
especially on utilitarian forms which are less likely to be exotic or prestigious objects of long-
distance exchange. In the case of the Inka, Bray (2003a, 2003b) finds that political hierarchies
were expressed through distinctive imperial culinary equipment. If similar strategies were
employed by the Chimú, we might expect to see distinctively Moche Valley Chimú ceramic
forms be added to Pedregal ceramic assemblages. New foods may also be adopted as a result
of wider trade networks or Chimú cultural influence. Shelia Pozorski (1982, also Pozorski and
Pozorski 1997), for example, notes a sharp increase in reliance on fruits, including the
previously unrecorded guanábana, during the Chimú period in the Moche Valley.
1.5.4 Did household scheduling priorities change as households were incorporated into
new regional economic systems?
If some household activities, such as maize production and processing, were intensified, we
might expect that the scheduling of other household activities was reorganized in response. As
Crown points out, tradeoffs in time, labor, and technology are required as domestic priorities
change (2000:228). Shifts in household economic and political priorities may lead to cuisine
change, as certain foods or methods of preparation come to occupy new places in the
household culinary repertoire. Brumfiel’s work (1991:240), for example, suggests that a heavier
reliance on labor-saving food preparation techniques such as wet cooking over direct heat may
have been necessary to allow more time for crop processing or working on state projects. One
correlate for this change would be an increase in the relative proportions of associated culinary
equipment, such as wide-mouthed, fire-blackened ollas. By comparing the proportions of
different vessel forms across occupational periods, I will be able to identify changes in culinary
activities that might be related to the scheduling of household tasks.
28
1.5.5 Did incorporation into the Chimú state affect household gender relations?
Changing household strategies often mean changes in the gendered organization of domestic
labor. Because women are most often involved more intimately than men in food preparation
activities, changing cuisine may affect women more than men (Crown 2000). Tradeoffs in the
priority or intensity of some household activities would affect other aspects of domestic and
social practice. State demands for tribute may have affected women’s labor at the household
level more strongly than men’s, since common tribute items in the Andes include the maize
processed by women and the textiles spun and woven by women. If women’s labor intensified
to meet tribute demands, I would expect to recover evidence for increased maize processing, in
the form of more or larger grinding stones and denser deposits of botanical processing debris,
and textile production, seen in denser or wider distributions of spindle whorls and other spinning
or weaving tools. Increased spatial constriction of women’s productive activities at Pedregal
during the Chimú period could suggest a reorganization of gendered space within the
household, and perhaps a refocusing of women’s economic efforts. By analyzing the spatial
patterning of household production and processing activities and examining the distribution and
density of macrobotanical processing remains, I address questions of women’s labor in
Pedregal households.
29
1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION
In Chapter 2, I discuss previous research on prehispanic households and empires on the north
coast of Peru and review how existing studies of Lambayeque and Chimú subsistence and
political economy provide a foundation and point of departure for the present study.
In Chapter 3, I detail the specific material correlates for the research questions
discussed above in the context of what we already know about households in the Chimú empire
and the Jequetepeque Valley. I then outline the research strategy adopted to address these
questions empirically. Finally, I discuss excavation and laboratory methodologies as they relate
to theoretical concerns, the present research questions, and the nature of the archaeological
record at Pedregal.
The remainder of the dissertation is devoted to discussing the results of my work at
Pedregal. Chapter 4 contains an overview of excavations in each of Pedregal’s sectors and
includes information on stratigraphy, deposition, features and artifacts recovered, and the
sequence of occupation in each excavated unit. This description provides the archaeological
context for the data presented in subsequent chapters.
Chapter 5 describes the nature of the household at Pedregal. I adopt an ethnographic
approach to detailing what a “typical” LIP household at Pedregal may have looked like. I
describe household architecture, layout, and contents, but also address the kinds of social
groups that would have lived in these household compounds and how these households would
have been integrated with larger Jequetepeque Valley social formations.
In Chapter 6, I use excavation data in conjunction with ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and
ecological studies to outline how Pedregal residents would have procured necessary household
resources. Specifically, I discuss regional ecology, environmental challenges, and the
30
organization of irrigation agriculture in the valley as well as wider redistributive and exchange
relationships. Faunal and botanical analyses reveal changing patterns of resource exploitation
and household provisioning, but the data also points to long-term continuities in how household
necessities were procured.
While Chapter 6 discusses activities that took place largely outside the house, Chapter 7
focuses on the house and presents evidence for the tasks carried out in Pedregal households,
including food processing and preparation, animal husbandry, and craft production. Drawing on
ethnographic and ethnohistoric analogy, I discuss how work was likely gendered within
Pedregal households, and how post-conquest changes in domestic labor may have been felt
differently by men and women.
Pedregal residents were not simply involved in economic tasks such as food processing,
and in Chapter 8 I turn to ritual at Pedregal. Ritual took place both within the household and at
the community level, and in this chapter I lay out evidence for small-scale household offerings
and for feasts that were likely shared by the whole community. I also discuss how ritual practice
at Pedregal might have been related to state religion and other ceremonial activities within the
valley.
Chapter 9 focuses on spatial and temporal dimensions of household practice at
Pedregal. While Chapter 5 describes a typical, or normative, household at Pedregal, Chapter 9
examines variations among the different households sampled. Using spatial and multivariate
analysis, I attempt to reconstruct functional variation among different spaces within households
and differences in status or specialization among households. I also investigate the extent to
which the timing of household practice can be reconstructed. Some tasks would have been part
of daily practice, while others would have occurred along longer cycles, and in Chapter 9 I use
data from Pedregal to explore the temporal rhythms of household life.
31
In the final chapter, I relate household practice at Pedregal to wider political and
economic processes. I sum up changes in household provisioning, the organization of
household tasks, community feasting, and the spatial and temporal dimensions of life at
Pedregal and address my research questions about how incorporation into the Chimú state was
experienced by Pedregal households. Finally, I consider how the answers to these questions
relate to Chimú strategies, the articulation between households and the Chimú state, and
general constructs of household resiliency and change.
32
2.0 ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SETTING
The Jequetepeque River flows westward from the foothills of the Andes, through Peru’s
northern coastal desert, to the Pacific Ocean (see Figure 2.1). The Jequetepeque is roughly
halfway between the Moche Valley to the south, heartland of the Moche and Chimú cultures,
and the Lambayeque Valley to the north, center of the Sicán polity. The valley also forms a
direct and relatively easy route east to Cajamarca in the highlands, an Inka stronghold in the
Late Horizon and the center of the complex pre-Inka Cajamarca culture. Because of its location
between the heartlands of several complex polities, the Jequetepeque has traditionally been
identified as a hinterland that received cultural influence from, and was sometimes under the
political control of, nearby Moche, Cajamarca, Sicán or Lambayeque, Chimú, and ultimately
Inka polities. Kosok (1965:118), for example, in his overview of the north coast, points out that
no distinct local ceramic style had been identified in the Jequetepeque, and argues that the
valley was a political as well as cultural crossroads. While subsequent work in the region has
convincingly identified local variations in architecture and ceramics (Castillo 2001; Sapp 2002;
Swenson 2004), the Jequetepeque was never the center of its own expansive regional polity.
Rather, the valley often occupied a provincial or peripheral position in regional polities centered
elsewhere. The Jequetepeque is thus an ideal arena in which to study processes of continuity
and change at the local level in the context of overarching political and economic changes.
33
Figure 2.1. North coast of Peru
2.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.1.1 Geography and ecology
The Jequetepeque River drops rapidly from the Andes to the Pacific Ocean, beginning at 3500
meters above sea level near Cajamarca and running west to the Pacific over a direct linear
34
distance of about 130 km. The Jequetepeque watershed covers 4200 km2 (Eling 1987), and
encompasses twelve different ecological zones (ONERN 1976). Pedregal is located in the
“desierto destacado Premontano Tropical” (Premontane Tropical extreme desert) zone, which
stretches from the Pacific shore to the westernmost edge of the Andean foothills, at about 300
masl (Eling 1987; ONERN 1988). This transition occurs at the valley neck, where the high,
relatively restricted valley walls of the middle valley abruptly widen out and give way to the
flatter, more open lower valley, and was recognized linguistically by prehispanic populations in
the distinction between the coastal, or yunga, zone and the middle valley chaupi-yunga.
The lower Jequetepeque River flows through a desert landscaape of barchan dunes,
arid plains scarred by dry quebradas, and rocky cerros. Quebradas, cerros, and dunes create
subtle microclimatic variations that increase the diversity and patchiness of resources in the
lower valley. Because of the low annual rainfall of 15.6-31.3 mm, agriculture depends on
extensive networks of irrigation canals. Beyond the irrigated floodplain, sparse vegetation
includes scattered cacti and isolated thickets of trees and shrubs such as zapote (Capparis
angulata), faique (Acacia macracantha), and algarrobo (Prosopis sp.) that rely on subsurface
water sources. Today, there are two relatively dense algarrobo forests in the valley, at
Cañoncillo and El Algarrobal de Moro. Extensive irrigation and a general drying trend over the
last 500 years have lowered the water table, and these forests are the highly fragmented
remnants of what were likely more extensive prehispanic forests (Dillehay et al. 2004:276).
Today, there is little wild terrestrial fauna in the area besides owls, foxes, and lizards, but deer
and other fauna may have been more common in the lower valley during the late prehispanic
period.
A number of prehispanic field systems in the lower Jequetepeque, including those near
Pedregal, are located on wide alluvial fans in soil that ranges in texture from sand to silt loam.
35
Though no systematic analysis of the soil in these fields has been conducted, Nordt et al. (2004)
analyzed the agricultural potential of soil from similar prehispanic field systems in the Pampa de
Chaparrí in the Lambayeque region. They found that the coarse texture of pampa soils would
have required frequent irrigation and external nitrogen inputs from fertilizer or nitrogen-fixing
legumes would have been necessary, but that soil fertility was generally high.
Despite the lower valley’s fertile soils, agricultural production is constrained by the
availability of water. River flow fluctuates seasonally based on rains in the highlands. From
December to April, rain falls in the adjacent highlands but weather on the coast is hot and dry.
During the winter (May-November) clouds and fog hang over the coast but rain is sparse and
infrequent. The Jequetepeque River boasts a large and relatively consistent flow volume
compared to neighboring valleys to the south (945 million cubic meters, compared to 321 million
in the Moche Valley [Wilson 1988:18]) and one of the larger cultivable areas on the north coast.
Based on his study of prehispanic canal systems, Eling (1987:107) argues that the maximum
extent of prehispanic irrigation was 88,000 ha. Today, even with the high water requirements of
rice, the main cash crop, farmers are able to produce two crops per year. In the lower valley rice
is harvested in May-June and the second crop, usually corn, is harvested in November. Though
it does not match the extensive Lambayeque-La Leche complex to the north, the Jequetepeque
Valley is one of the most agriculturally productive valleys in the region today and would likely
have been similarly productive in the past.
2.1.2 Resource distribution on the coast
A central concept in reconstructions of Andean economies has been the vertical archipelago, in
which Andean populations took advantage of vertically stratified resource zones that, because
36
of the sharp changes in altitude of the Andes, were separated by relatively short distances
(Murra 1972; Van Buren 1996). On a small scale, verticality means that one household might
work territorially discontiguous plots in different microclimates at different altitudes, and that
people who resided in one community may have access to land in others. On a macro-regional
scale, the territory of a polity might also be discontiguous; this has been argued for cases in the
Titicaca Basin and the Moquegua Valley (Aldenderfer 1993; Goldstein 2000).
On the coast, a proper vertical orientation does not seem to have been as important.
Many coastal societies, such as the Moche and the Chimú, did not extend their control inland
beyond the highest intakes of coastal irrigation system. Shimada (1987) has argued, instead,
that coastal states established territorially discontiguous colonies along the coast to take
advantage of horizontal variations in resource availability. Like the vertical archipelagos
established by highland societies, these horizontal archipelagos allowed coastal societies direct
access to useful economic resources without the need to completely control wide swaths of
intervening territory. Unclear, however, is the extent to which this concept of horizontality would
have functioned at a community or household level to give individual farmers or communities
access to land in different microclimatic zones.
2.1.3 Sources of risk in the Jequetepepque Valley
Prehispanic residents of the coast faced environment environmental uncertainties and
fluctuations, some cyclical and repeated, some random and unpredictable. In addition to the
patchy resource distribution I discuss above, the Jequetepeque Valley populations had to cope
with several sources of environmental uncertainty and risk.
37
2.1.3.1 The El Niño cycle
One of the most commonly studied cyclical fluctuations, at least in recent years, is the El Niño
cycle, or El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. This cycle is believed to have begun in
the mid-Holocene, around 5000 years ago, when oceans reached their current levels and the
course of the cold Humboldt Current shifted north, bringing biologically rich colder waters up the
coast. During an El Niño, warm surface waters move east across the Pacific, which causes
more rain than average to fall across western South America. An ENSO event occurs on
average ever 3.8 years, and a very large ENSO event has occurred about every 38 years since
1800 (Van Buren 2001). On the coast, ENSO events are accompanied by excessive rainfall and
flooding in addition to disruptions in the normal distribution of marine resources, a difficult
combination for populations that rely on fishing and irrigation agriculture in an otherwise harsh
environment.
Cultural responses to such risk varied through time in the Jequetepeque Valley (Dillehay
and Kolata 2004), and ranged from opportunistic and transient agriculture to heavy investment
in agricultural infrastructure. Paleoenvironmental work on ice cores from the Quelccaya Glacier,
in addition to archaeological work on the desert coast, has dated some particularly severe
ENSO events, and some researchers (e.g. Shimada et al. 1991) have identified these events as
the culprits of several major cultural upheavals on the coast.
However, these events should not be automatically linked to cultural or political
disruption, much less collapse. Drawing from disaster studies, Van Buren (2001) argues that the
primary variable in understanding disruption and collapse is not the absolute magnitude of the
natural disaster but the vulnerability of specific social, political, and economic institutions. Social
coping mechanisms reduce vulnerability to natural hazards, especially when these hazards are
38
cyclical and therefore not entirely unprecedented, as is the case with ENSO events. It is only
when such coping mechanisms break down that environmental fluctuations become disasters.
Moore’s (1991) study of a 14th century El Niño event in the Casma Valley provides an
example of such coping mechanisms. After a particularly strong El Niño, a short-term planned
community, Santa Cristina, emerged in a zone of raised fields, suggesting that agricultural labor
was directed toward repairing and reclaiming damaged infrastructure. Different marine
resources were consumed at Santa Cristina as compared to the barrios of Manchan;
specifically, consumption shifted to species that would have been more common directly after
an ENSO disruption. Moore’s study shows a population responding to environmental disruption
by taking advantage of a changed resource base and investing in agricultural infrastructure,
rather than collapsing under the stress of environmental fluctuation. My own observations in the
modern middle Jequetepeque Valley suggest that people take advantage of rainy El Niño years
to grow crops in wide quebradas that would otherwise be too far from the river to irrigate. Thus
while ENSO events might prove disruptive to established canals and settlements, they also
provide the opportunity to increase production in other ways.
Given the repetitive nature of the ENSO cycle, the relatively frequent occurrence of mild
El Niño events (every 4-7 years) and the existence of observable precursors, or warning signs,
this form of environmental fluctuation may have been easier to cope with than other, more
uncertain environmental changes, such as droughts. Droughts on the coast occur during
periods of low rainfall in the adjacent highlands. The paleoclimatic record indicates that periods
of multi-year droughts occurred several times during late prehistory on the north coast (Shimada
1994, Shimada et al. 1991), and may be correlated with the collapse of Moche society.
39
2.1.3.2 Uplift and seismic activity
Another unpredictable source of environmental risk is seismic activity. The entire western coast
of South America is a zone of high seismic stress, and the Nazca Plate collides with the South
American Plate. On the north coast of Peru, this activity is reflected in two processes, the slow
continuing uplift of the coastal shelf and occasional earthquakes of varying strength. Moseley
(1983; Ortloff et al. 1982) has argued that slow processes of tectonic uplift would have affected
the coastal irrigation systems. As the coastal plain slowly rose, the slope of the land was
reduced slightly, causing irrigation systems to become less effective, especially as they near the
ocean. These processes are evident today in the fact that numerous prehispanic canals,
including the Moche-Chicama intervalley canal constructed by the Chimú, would not function
today—water would in some places have run uphill (but see Pozorski and Pozorski 1982).
Additionally, the slow downcutting action of the river makes it necessary to move canal intakes
farther upstream to irrigate nearby land. Constant re-engineering of canal intakes, courses, and
slopes would thus have been necessary over a long time span. (Moseley 1983).
Another process that affects the coastal landscape is the outflow and redeposition of
sediments. Rivers constantly cut downward and carry sediment out to sea. When earthquakes
occur, they can cause even larger amounts of sediment to be suddenly deposited in rivers. This
sediment is washed out to sea, carried north by the prevailing currents and deposited along the
coast. Prevailing winds from the southwest pick up sediment and drop it along the southern
edges of lower valleys, generating the expansive sand dunes that are located on the south side
of rivers like the Jequetepeque, the Chao, and the Moche. These migrating barchan dunes are
known to have threatened or even swept across sites such as the Huacas de Moche in the
Moche Valley (Chapdelaine 2001) and Cañoncillo in the Jequetepeque (Warner et al. 2005).
40
In sum, coastal populations faced short and long-term climatic and environmental
fluctuations that would have occasionally threatened agricultural infrastructure as well as basic
subsistence. However, various cultural strategies, such as the exploitation of a wide variety of
wild and domesticated resources and investment in agricultural infrastructure, helped
prehispanic residents of the Jequetepeque Valley buffer such risk and uncertainty.
2.2 THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SETTING
2.2.1 Early developments
The Jequetepeque Valley has long sequence of human occupation, spanning at least 4000
years (Figure 2.2, Figure 2.3, Figure 2.4). During the Preceramic period, a small, residentially
mobile population supplemented wild marine and terrestrial resources with early cultigens like
gourds and cotton. By the Early Horizon, some central places with public architecture had
emerged, particularly in the middle valley (Ravines 1982; Tellenbach 1986), but Jequetepeque
populations did not develop the levels of early sociopolitical complexity evidenced by early
monumental construction in the nearby Moche Valley (T. Pozorski 1980), or the Casma to the
south (Pozorski and Pozorski 1992). In the later Formative, the 36 ha proto-urban site of
Jatanca featured rectangular compounds that anticipate the architecture of later Lambayeque
and Chimú urban centers (Warner et al. 2005).
41
2.2.2 Moche in the Jequetepeque
During the Early Intermediate Period, the distinctive Moche corporate style emerged in the
Moche Valley, and spread to neighboring valleys. An important Early Moche period site in the
Jequetepeque is Dos Cabezas, a center with a large huaca (mud-brick pyramid) located on the
valley floor near the mouth of the river (Donnan 2001). Rich tombs uncovered at Dos Cabezas
attest to the presence of considerable social complexity in the valley during this period. After
Dos Cabezas was abandoned, Pacatnamú became the most important lower valley Moche
center, reaching its height during the Middle Moche period (Donnan 1997:12). Also during this
period, the first elite burials were conducted at the funerary and ceremonial site of San José de
Moro. Villages and cemeteries were built inland from Pacatnamú across the Pampa de Faclo,
including a small Middle-Late Moche occupation at Pedregal.
During the Moche IV period (A.D. 450-600), Moche society reached the apex of its
sociopolitical complexity. Moche political authority was centered at the urban center of Huacas
de Moche in the Moche Valley. There is ongoing debate about whether the Moche polity was a
united multi-valley territorial state (Billman 2002; Moseley 1992) or a loose confederation of
independent chiefly polities linked by a shared corporate style and religion (Castillo 2003;
Donnan and Castillo 1994; Quilter 2002; Shimada 1994). Though iconographic evidence
highlights a concern with warfare during this period, it is not clear whether this warfare can be
better characterized as battles of territorial conquest or ceremonial enactments of ritual conflict
(Bourget 2001; Quilter 2002; Verano 2001).
42
Figure 2.2. General Andean and Jequetepeque Valley chronologies
43
Figure 2.3. Map of north coast valleys showing sites mentioned in the text
44
Figure 2.4. Lower Jequetepeque Valley showing sites mentioned in the text
At the beginning of the Moche V period, around A.D. 600, Moche society underwent a
dramatic transition. Populations in the southern sphere of the Moche region, including the
Santa, Chao, and Virú Valleys, ceased to interact closely with those in the northern
Jequetepeque, Lambayeque, and La Leche Valleys. Galindo became the seat of Moche V
period political power in the Moche Valley, while Pampa Grande, in the Lambayeque Valley,
emerged as the most important urban center in the northern sphere (Johnson in preparation;
Shimada 1994). This transition, and the subsequent collapse of Moche culture by A.D. 750-800,
is no longer believed to have been caused by Wari conquest (Castillo 2001, 2003), but there is
45
ongoing debate about whether it can be best attributed to external conditions (a severe drought
in the 6th century, coupled with large-scale ENSO events [Shimada et al. 1991; Shimada 1994])
or to internal tensions (Bawden 1995).
In the Jequetepeque, crisis and reorganization is apparent at several scales during the
Late Moche period (A.D. 600-750). At San José de Moro, new funerary patterns emerged and a
new, northern artistic style appeared on decorated fineline vessels, pointing to considerable
innovation in practices restricted to, and therefore closely associated with, the elite (Castillo
2000, 2001, 2003). Wari ceramics and local Wari hybrids first appeared in Late Moche elite
burials, as Moro elites began to advertise ties to exotic and successful polities or ideological
systems. Through the Late Moche collapse and the subsequent Transitional period, foreign
ceramics from the central highlands and coast (Wari and Nievería), the adjacent northern
highlands (Cajamarca), and the emerging Sicán polity to the north continued to appear in
Moche elite tombs. At Moro, then, the Late Moche period marked the beginning of changes that
culminated in the disappearance of elite Moche practices.
More of the Jequetepeque Valley’s area was occupied in the Late Moche period than in
subsequent periods, but survey evidence suggests that many sites may have been only
temporarily or periodically occupied (Dillehay 2001; Dillehay and Kolata 2004). A particularly
striking aspect of the Late Moche landscape in the Jequetepeque is the number of fortified
hilltop sites throughout the lower valley and valley neck, leading Dillehay (2001) to describe the
Late Moche Jequetepeque as the setting for factional competition over territory and resources.
Dillehay (2001:260) argues that despite crises at elite Moche centers in the Jequetepeque and
elsewhere, Moche countryside communities survived, though “most likely through significant
restructuring of social organization and intercommunity relations and through shifts in their
domestic and political economies.” For example, Swenson’s (2004, 2006, 2007b) work on Late
46
Moche hinterland ceremonial sites in the lower Jequetepeque has revealed considerable variety
in the political and ritual practices of local elites during this period. Architectural analysis of
plazas, mounds, and ramps at hinterland sites suggests to Swenson (2007b) that hinterland
public ceremonies and ideological strategies were prolific and locally diverse. Swenson
(2007b:25) argues that the focus on local reinterpretations and expressions of Moche religion
helped assert local autonomy and reinforce community identity in the face of political and
ecological restructuring in the Late Moche period.
2.2.3 Lambayeque (Sicán)
Distinctively Moche iconography, style and funerary practices disappeared at San José de Moro
and other elite sites on the north coast by around A.D. 750-800. Unlike in the Jequetepeque,
subsequent local developments in the Moche and Lambayeque Valleys represented the first
steps toward the consolidation of regional polities—the Lambayeque (Sicán) 1 polity in
Lambayeque and Chimú in the Moche.
As yet, we do not have a clear picture of the earliest post-Moche developments in the
Lambayeque region. By A.D. 900, the complex Middle Sicán polity had emerged, centered at
the site of Batán Grande. Shimada (2000) argues that strongly marked social differentiation, a
high level of elite control over production and exploitation of resources, a broad trading network,
and widespread religious influence indicate the presence of a state level of development during
1
The terms ‘Lambayeque’ and ‘Sicán’ are the source of some confusion in the literature. Shimada (1985)
proposes the use of ‘Sicán’ (with Early, Middle, and Late periods) to refer to the complex polity that arose
in the Lambayeque-La Leche valleys and constructed political and ceremonial centers at Batán Grande
and Túcume. However, other researchers within this valley and elsewhere on the north coast (Franco and
Gálvez 2005, Heyerdahl et al. 1995, Prieto in press) refer to this period and culture as ‘Lambayeque.’
Here I use the term ‘Sicán’ to refer to the polity that preceded Chimú arrival in the Lambayeque-La Leche
Valleys, but follow common usage in Jequetepeque Valley studies by referring to the related period and
culture in the Jequetepeque and elsewhere as ‘Lambayeque.’
47
the Middle Sicán period. Middle Sicán iconography was syncretic, blending Moche and Wari
elements, and prominently featured a figure known as the Sicán Deity. Shimada (1990:359-360)
suggests that the Middle Sicán polity emerged rapidly as a strong religious ideology, perhaps
best characterized as a revitalization or messianic movement.
Tschauner’s (2001) survey of the north bank of the Lambayeque River revealed a
settlement hierarchy with at least four tiers, and a settlement pattern consistent with a well-
integrated, unified system. There is evidence that the Middle Sicán state organized and
administered production of both staple and wealth items. Middle Sicán craft production,
particularly metallurgy, was highly technologically developed and organized by the state
(Shimada 2000; Tschauner 2001). Hayashida (2006) notes the expansion of irrigation
agriculture into previously unused areas such as the Pampa de Chaparrí during the Middle
Sicán period and suggests that the Middle Sicán state intensified agricultural production there.
However, the extent to which the Middle Sicán polity controlled adjacent valleys is unknown. In
the Jequetepeque Valley, Lambayeque fineware is present, but rare, and Shimada states that
Middle Sicán control over the Jequetepeque was likely never more than “limited or tenuous,”
(1990:339).
The Middle Sicán polity suffered a cataclysmic end, perhaps after an extended drought
caused the population to lose faith in religious leaders (Shimada 2000:61). At Batán Grande,
platform mounds were intentionally burnt around A.D. 1050-1100, the site was abandoned, and
the site of Túcume emerged as the focus of public construction during the Late Sicán period.
Shimada suggests that because of the strategic location of Túcume and the centralization and
shared architectural canons of monumental construction there, the site likely “symbolized the
unification or reconfiguration of elite lineages (that were earlier represented at Sicán [Batán
Grande] by more dispersed mounds) into a single intervalley polity,” (2000:63). Tschauner
48
(2001) reports four levels of settlement hierarchy on the north bank of the Lambayeque River
during this period.
During this period, Lambayeque occupation extended to adjacent valleys as far as the
upper Piura Valley to the north (Shimada 2000) and the Chicama Valley to the south (Franco
and Gálvez 2005). At a regional level, Lambayeque has been described as a multi-valley
confederation of ceremonial and administrative centers whose heartland was in the
Lambayeque region (Conlee et al. 2004; Heyerdahl et al. 1995; Kosok 1965; Mackey 2006).
Despite their participation in regional cultural, stylistic, and religious traditions and their
involvement in regional trade networks, it is likely that valley centers were relatively autonomous
politically (Conlee et al. 2004:214). However, some researchers have argued that the Late
Sicán polity conquered and politically administered the Jequetepeque and Zaña Valleys
(Castillo 2000; Prieto in press).
In the Jequetepeque Valley, Pacatnamú was the ceremonial and administrative center
during the late Lambayeque 2 period. The Lambayeque occupation of Pacatnamú consisted of
over 50 platform mounds, 37 of which form part of huaca-quadrangles with a northern huaca
sector and a southern compound with rooms, patios, and storerooms (Donnan 1986). These
huaca-quadrangles are interpreted as elite residences with space for public and restricted
ceremonial events (Donnan 1986). Huaca-quadrangles are unlike Middle and Late Sicán
monumental architecture found at Batán Grande or Túcume in the Lambayeque region (Sapp
2002:46). Though Pacatnamú was originally viewed as an empty pilgrimage center, residences
of elites and a lower class population involved in fishing and agricultural activities have now
been uncovered at the site (Gumerman 1991, 2002). Gumerman’s (1991) research into diet and
2
In the first volume of the Pacatnamú Papers (Donnan and Cock 1986), Donnan (1986:20) identifies the
later occupation of Pacatnamú as Chimú. However, based on subsequent refinements of north coast
cultural history, this occupation is now identified as Lambayeque, and the site is believed to have been
abandoned with Chimú conquest of the valley (Donnan 1997:12-14).
49
subsistence at Pacatnamú shows that socioeconomic differences between Pacatnamú
residents were expressed not only in household architecture, but in daily diet. While overall diet,
and particularly maize consumption, was relatively constant among households, members of the
upper class ate more camelids and “luxury” foods like ají peppers, and many fewer wild
resources as compared to the lower class population.
Pacatnamú was at the apex of a complex settlement system in the Jequetepeque.
Farfán, a secondary administrative center, stood at the intersection of the north-south road and
the route east to the highlands. During the Lambayeque period, Farfán consisted of three
rectangular compounds, a large cemetery mound, a ceramic workshop, and a residential area
(Mackey 2006, in press). Farfán’s Lambayeque compounds, Pacatnamú huaca-quadrangles,
and elite architecture at Cabur, a residential site on the south bank of the river (Sapp 2002)
were built in a shared architectural style (Mackey in press; Sapp 2002:51-52). Another elite
residence was located at San José de Moro (Prieto 2006, in press), and may have been related
to Lambayeque control over the funerary ceremonies that continued to be held at the site (Prieto
in press).
The distribution of hinterland sites in the Jequetepeque is less well understood for this
period than for the Late Moche 3. Lambayeque settlements, including the monumental center of
Ventanillas 4, extended farther into the middle valley than did Moche and Chimú sites and were
interdigitated with highland-affiliated villages like Las Varas (Tsai 2007, Tsai and Murga 2006).
As in the Middle-Late Moche periods, during the Lambayque period the Pampa de Faclo was an
3
The Pacasmayo Project (Dillehay 2001; Dillehay and Kolata 2004; Dillehay et al. 2004; Swenson 2004)
did not distinguish Lambayeque and Chimú materials based on surface collections, since the domestic
ceramic assemblage varies little between these two periods.
4
Work at Ventanillas includes a licenciatura thesis (Echevarría 2001) and informal evaluations during
middle valley surveys, but no systematic investigation. It has been referred to as Early Moche (Dillehay
2001) and Chimú (Ravines 1982). However, platform mounds at Ventanillas seem to utilize
characteristically Lambayeque chamber-and-fill construction methods, and Lambayeque diagnostic
ceramics are present on the surface of the site.
50
important locus of lower valley settlement. Pedregal is one of many Lambayeque residential
sites, cemeteries, and quadrangular compounds scattered across the pampa from Pacatnamú
to Farfán.
2.2.4 The Chimú empire
At the same time as the Middle Sicán polity dominated much of the former northern Moche
sphere, the Chimú state began to emerge in the former southern Moche sphere. Around A.D.
900, construction began at Chan Chan, the paramount Chimú center, and a distinctive Early
Chimú corporate style emerged from a blend of local precedents and multiple Middle Horizon
foreign influences (Mackey 1983), including the Wari empire, the central coast to the south, and
Sicán to the north. More work is needed on the earliest occupations at Chan Chan and
secondary sites in the Moche Valley core to elucidate the processes involved in the emergence
and consolidation of the Chimú state. After its early (A.D. 900-1100) consolidation period in the
Moche, Chicama, and Virú Valley heartland, the Chimú state expanded to control a wide swath
of the north coast by Inka conquest around A.D. 1470.
2.2.4.1 Models of statecraft on the north coast
The Chimú state developed as a highly complex polity, economically specialized and ruled by
dual and quadripartite hierarchies of local lords. Based on historical documents, Netherly (1984,
1990) has proposed that the north coast was organized into bounded sociopolitical units or
parcialidades, each ruled by a lord or curaca. Parcialidades were organized as ranked moieties,
with one paramount lord and his parcialidad occupying the top level of the hierarchy. The
ranked parcialidad system served to define the relationships between different social groups,
51
determine water rights, and ensure that disputes over land or water could be settled by a local
lord at the next tier of the hierarchy rather than requiring the intervention of a central authority.
Unlike in the highlands, occupationally specialized communities were relatively common
on the coast. Local lords facilitated redistribution and exchange of these specialized products.
Evidence for merchants in Chincha (Rostworowski 1970; Sandweiss 1992) and possible money
(hacha moneda and naipes) found from the Lambayeque region north to Ecuador suggests that
commerce played a more important role on the coast than in the highlands. This social, political,
and economic context created opportunities and challenges for the emerging Chimú political
economy that were likely very different than those encountered by the Inka or other highland
states. Thus models of statecraft and political economy developed for the Inka may not be
entirely applicable to the Chimú or other coastal states.
However, Conrad (1981; Conrad and Demarest 1984) has argued that Chimú and Inka
imperial expansion were both linked to particularly Andean ideologies of divinely mandated
kingship and ancestor worship. These principles supported a system of split inheritance, in
which one principal heir inherited the office but the possessions and sources of income
amassed by the previous holder of the office were passed to secondary heirs and their
corporate group. Conrad draws on ethnohistory as well as archaeology to argue that the Chimú
and Inka empires both employed this system. Spanish chroniclers clearly describe how the
palaces and estates of deceased Inka royalty were maintained by members of their panacas, or
royal corporate groups. The empire had to expand as each new ruler constructed new palaces
and secured land for his own estates, which accounts for their relatively rapid expansions.
In the Andes generally, it has been observed that a main component of political authority
is control over labor, not physical territory. For example, Ramirez (2005) has argued that clear
physical boundaries between communities or polities were not recognized in the Andes until the
52
reducciones introduced by the Spanish to control and administer their colony. Instead, Andean
leaders employed relationships of kinship and reciprocity and cult to the ancestors to claim
access to labor. The object of state expansion was not to conquer new territory, then, but to
access a wider labor pool by inserting the state at the apex of the hierarchy of asymmetrical
obligations of reciprocity.
A central interest of the consolidating and expanding Chimú state would thus likely have
been control over the labor of occupationally specialized communities, ranging from farming and
fishing villages to groups of metalworkers and other craft specialists. These communities, and
the irrigation networks essential to life on the coast, would already have been administered by
ranked hierarchies of local lords. Chimú expansion would have been driven by the needs of the
political economy to access staple and prestige goods, but these needs would likely have been
phrased in terms consistent with ideologies of split inheritance, divine right, and reciprocal
obligation. Before turning my attention to Chimú conquest and consolidation in the provinces,
however, I will discuss central principles of Chimú political economy as observed in the Chimú
heartland.
2.2.4.2 Chan Chan
After A.D. 900, the Moche Valley settlement system was dominated by the site of Chan Chan.
At its height, up to 30,000 people inhabited the six km2 city (Moseley 1975; Topic 1990). During
the 1970s, members of the Chan Chan-Moche Valley project, directed by Michael E. Moseley
and Carol J. Mackey, investigated the diverse sectors of the city in the context of the wider
valley system (Moseley and Day 1982; Moseley and Cordy-Collins 1990; Ravines 1980).
The monumental core of Chan Chan consists of ten rectangular monumental
compounds, known as ciudadelas, each surrounded by thick adobe walls reaching heights of
53
ten meters. High walls served to spatially circumscribe and demarcate the compounds and to
shield internal activities from the view of the population as a whole (Moore 2003). Ciudadelas
were constructed according to a strict canon that appears even in the earliest compounds. They
were divided into three increasingly restricted sections that contain public spaces, administrative
areas, walk-in wells, and ritual platforms (Campana 2006; Conrad 1982; Day 1982; Kolata 1990;
Moore 1992). Entrances are limited in number and size, and often baffled or offset to further
restrict access. Narrow, twisting corridors connect internal plazas to other areas of the
compound, ensuring that movement through the compounds follows determined, and controlled,
route.
Internal plazas with a raised dais on one end would have provided space for ceremonies
with an audience of moderate size. Wooden models of similar plazas (Uceda 1997) suggest that
elites, ancestors, musicians, and other attendees may have gathered to consume food and
drink at these festive events. Behind the plazas, accessible via narrow access hallways, are U-
shaped structures with niches and bins, traditionally referred to as audiencias, and smaller
rooms with raised lintels, generally thought of as storerooms. Though Moore’s (1992)
architectural analysis suggested the need to explore alternate explanations of audiencia
function, audiencias are most often understood as part of the administrative infrastructure of the
Chimú state. Officials could sit in audiencias to control the movement of goods into and out of
storerooms. Topic (2003) suggests that changes in audiencia layout and location through time
suggest an increasing interest in the flow of information through administrative hierarchies,
rather than in the movement of bulk commodities. He argues that the audiencias themselves
could have been used as accounting devices similar to quipus. Though as Moore (1992) points
out, audiencias do not always directly control lines of sight and access into storerooms,
especially in later ciudadelas, the two structures are spatially linked at Chan Chan. The amount
54
of space within ciudadelas devoted to storerooms speaks to the importance of storage, likely of
finished manufactured goods, in the Chimú political economy.
Each ciudadela at Chan Chan also contains a royal burial platform, though no intact
royal burials have been recovered intact (Conrad 1982). Based on adobe brick seriation, most
researchers have proposed that ciudadelas were constructed one at a time. Sequential
construction and combined administrative, ritual, and funerary functions have led researchers to
suggest that ciudadelas functioned as royal palaces, perhaps newly constructed for each
paramount leader and maintained after the leader’s death along the lines of Cuzco’s panaca
system (Conrad 1981; Kolata 1983) Cavallaro’s (1991) brick analysis, however, suggests that
ciudadelas were constructed in pairs, one on either side of the site, a sequence which could
relate to the parcialidad system of dual leadership over ranked moieties (Netherly 1990;
Zuidema 1990).
Kolata (1983) argues that like Cuzco, Chan Chan functioned as an extension of the royal
households of the Chimú leaders. He distinguishes this urban model, the oikos city, from cities
that functioned as secular market centers independent of the royal economy. In oikos cities, the
economy revolved around the needs of the royal households. The activities of the intermediate
elite (Klymyshyn 1982) and the lower classes at Chan Chan would thus have been tightly tied to
royal consumption and the Chimú political economy.
The lower class barrios, or small irregularly agglutinated rooms (SIAR) at Chan Chan
provide one example of how the needs of the royal households organized the city itself. Topic’s
(1977, 1980, 1982, 1990) work on SIAR households revealed a pronounced focus on craft
production, primarily metallurgy and weaving, but also woodworking and bead production, in the
lower class population. Most households contained craft production refuse as well as evidence
of daily food production and animal rearing activities, and more formal workshops with bins and
55
supervisory architecture were interspersed with household production contexts. Though craft
production was widespread in the SIAR, special retainer workshops attached to the ciudadelas
also produced finely finished goods. Much of the production that took place in the SIAR
neighborhoods surrounding the ciudadelas, then, must have been destined for elite or royal
consumption.
2.2.4.3 The Moche Valley system under the Chimú
In the Moche Valley rural hinterland, the population was organized under a tight administrative
hierarchy to produce food and complete state-sponsored canal and road construction products
(Keatinge 1975, 1982; S. Pozorski 1979, 1982). The land outside Chan Chan was farmed by
means of an extensive irrigation system and, especially in the lower part of the valley, sunken
fields excavated down to the water table to intensify production and support the large population
at Chan Chan (Moseley and Deeds 1982). Villages like Cerro la Virgen functioned as rural
sustaining villages (Keatinge 1975) to produce food and cotton for urban consumption. Other
villages near the coast were devoted to marine resource exploitation or specialized production
of resources like totora reeds (Moseley and Mackey 1972), reflecting the north coast principle of
occupational specialization (Rostworoswski 1975, 1977). The Moche Valley rural system was
supervised by small administrative centers like El Milagro de San José, Quebrada del Oso, and
Quebrada Katuay, which featured elements of the Chimú administrative architectural canon
such as audiencias and storerooms, but on a greatly reduced scale as compared to Chan Chan.
(Keatinge 1982).
Some of our best evidence for the socioeconomic organization of the Chimú heartland
comes from investigations into the subsistence system (S. Pozorski 1979, 1982). In her survey
of changing Moche Valley subsistence, Shelia Pozorski compares subsistence data from Chan
56
Chan to data from outlying settlements. Though her sample size is limited to a few midden cuts
at each site, Pozorski argues that the subsistence system was organized around redistribution
of staple resources such as maize, with rural agricultural villages producing bulk crops and
being supplied with camelid meat. Some variation, particularly in use of marine resources,
points to local exploitation to supplement state supplied goods. The overall similarity in the diet
at these different sites, however, speaks to integrated production and distribution within the
Chimú system.
2.2.4.4 Time and change in the Chimú state
Production and administration at Chan Chan changed in focus and intensity throughout the
occupational sequence, as the state moved from consolidating its heartland to expanding into
new territories. Kolata’s (1982, 1990) chronology, based on architectural morphology (especially
audiencia form, see also Andrews 1974) and adobe brick form, defines three periods of
construction at Chan Chan. The first ciudadelas were constructed between A.D. 900 and 1200,
in the Early Chimú phase. Many of the central elements of the Chimú canon emerged in this first
phase. The second phase of construction, between about A.D. 1200-1300, was limited, followed
by a burst of construction between A.D. 1300 and 1370, during the Late Chimú period. Later
construction at the site filled in empty spaces between existing compounds but did not infringe
on older ciudadelas. There is evidence for increasing internal complexity in later compounds, as
well as the changing function of administrative audiencias mentioned above (Topic 2003), from
supervising the flow of bulk commodities to focusing on monitoring the flow of bureaucratic
information.
Kolata (1990) argues that changes in ciudadela form related to increasing military
expansionism and more clearly marked sociopolitical differentiation through time in the Chimú
57
state. He suggests (1990: 135) that after A.D. 1100, when a large ENSO event may have
produced catastrophic effects on irrigation canals, the state may have reoriented its extractive
economy toward external expansion and incorporation rather than agricultural production in the
heartland (also see Von Hagen and Morris 1998:152-3). Alternately, Conrad’s (1981) argument
that Chimú expansion was spurred by ideologies of ancestor worship and the system of split
inheritance could also explain this reorientation toward external conquest. If the limited irrigable
land in the Moche and Chicama heartland was claimed by the panacas of previous rulers, new
kings would need to look outside the heartland for income.
In any case, storage space in ciudadelas increased after A.D. 1100, and as conquests
were successful, especially in later phases, this influx of new resources was directed toward a
burst of construction at Chan Chan. Production of elite goods in the SIAR also increased in later
phases, perhaps reflecting incorporation of the newly conquered Lambayeque Valley’s
renowned metalworkers into the artisan population. At the same time, the increasing physical
separation of ciudadelas and the growth of elite intermediate architecture sectors point to
increasing social distance and stratification within the Chimú capital. Royal rulership may have
been more strongly marked through time at Chan Chan, corresponding to a growth in state
power during periods of expansion.
2.2.4.5 Chimú state expansion and provincial rule
The memory of Chimú campaigns of conquest into nearby valleys was preserved during the
brief Inka occupation of the coast, and ultimately recorded in ethnohistoric accounts. The
Anonymous History of Trujillo (1604; translated by Rowe 1948: 29-30) describes the founding of
the Kingdom of Chimor by Taycanamo, who arrived in the Moche Valley on a balsa raft. His
grandson Ñançenpinco presided over the first wave of expansion, consolidating the area from
58
Jequetepeque to Santa. After five to seven subsequent rulers, Minchançaman conquered the
coast from Tumbes to Chillón. During Minchançaman’s rule, Chimor was conquered by the Inka
and Minchançaman’s son was installed as a puppet ruler. Calancha’s (1638; summarized by
Conrad 1990; Moseley 1990) account of Chimú expansion states that the Jequetepeque Valley
was conquered by a military leader named General Pacatnamú who established an
administrative center, mostly likely at the site of Farfán (Conrad 1990). In his seminal article,
Rowe (1948) used these descriptions to suggest that Chimú expansion to the Jequetepeque
occurred around A.D. 1370. He suggested that the Chimú state first expanded north to the
Jequetepeque and south to the Santa, and then in a second wave of conquest extended its rule
north to Tumbes and south to the Chillón Valley.
Archaeological data has subsequently refined the chronology of Chimú expansion.
Based on data from defensive sites and administrative outposts, Theresa Topic (1990, see also
Keatinge and Conrad 1983) outlined three stages of state-building. According to Topic,
consolidation of the heartland and middle Moche Valley occurred first, between A.D. 900 and
1000/1050. The first wave of conquest took place between A.D. 1130 and 1200 and
encompassed nearby valleys, from Santa in the south to Jequetepeque in the north. The
second expansive push extended Chimú control south as far as the Chillón Valley and north at
least to Tumbes by A.D. 1400. In their 1990 article, Mackey and Klymyshyn propose three
stages of expansion after core consolidation: an initial push to encompass the Jequetepeque to
Santa region, a second stage that consolidated Chimú rule north to the Motupe Valley and
extended influence north to Tumbes, and a third stage that moved Chimú rule south to Casma
by 1305 and extended influence, but not political control, south to the Chillón. This model is
useful in that it distinguishes Chimú influence, represented by the presence of Chimú ceramics
59
and other stylistic indicators, from consolidated political control, indicated by administrative
infrastructure.
Both the timing of Chimú territorial expansion and the strategies adopted by the Chimú
state to administer its provinces have been particular interests of recent and ongoing research.
Investigations at three Chimú provincial administrative centers, Farfán in the Jequetepeque
Valley (Mackey 2006), Manchán in the Casma Valley (Mackey and Klymyshyn 1990), and
Túcume in the Lambayeque Valley (Heyerdahl et al. 1995) have suggested that Chimú
expansion occurred over a shorter period and encompassed a more dynamic mix of
administrative strategies at the local level than previously suspected.
According to more recent conceptions of Chimú expansion (Mackey 2006; Moore and
Mackey 2008), the three currently known Chimú provincial centers were established in relatively
quick succession between A.D. 1300 and 1400 5. The Chimú army likely reached the
Jequetepeque Valley around A.D. 1310-20, staging the intense military campaign described in
the ethnohistoric accounts (Calancha 1977[1638]). Archaeological evidence confirms the
intensity of this takeover. After Chimú arrival, the existing center of Pacatnamú was abandoned.
At Farfán, the Chimú destroyed existing compounds, placed four female burials, likely sacrifices,
on the razed foundations, and constructed their administrative compounds above (Mackey
2006, Mackey and Jaúregui 2004). To the south of the Chimú heartland, Vogel (2003) suggests
that Cerro la Cruz in the Chao Valley was occupied by the local Casma polity until around A.D.
1300. Manchán was established around A.D. 1350 in the Casma Valley (Mackey 2006), likely
by more diplomatic means than Farfán (Mackey and Klymyshyn 1990). Finally, after first
clashing with the Lambayeque in the Jequetepeque Valley and then interacting with the
5
Keatinge and Conrad (1983) report earlier dates from their excavations in Compound 2 at Farfán.
However, recent work at Farfán (Mackey 2006, in press; Mackey and Jáuregui 2003) has defined a pre-
Chimú Lambayeque occupation at the site and securely dated the Chimú occupation to the 14th century.
60
Lambayeque region for 80-90 years, the Chimú pushed their border north to the Lambayeque-
La Leche heartland by around A.D. 1400, took control of this region’s rich resources and co-
opted the existing center of Túcume in the La Leche Valley (Heyerdahl et al. 1995).
At each provincial center, the Chimú employed elements of their distinctive architectural
canon, such as rectangular compounds with plazas, audiencias, storerooms, and burial
platforms. The presence of storerooms and audiencias at Farfán and Manchan suggests that
extracting and accumulating goods was an important function of provincial centers (Mackey in
press). The volume of storage is small at these sites compared to Chan Chan. If bulk goods
were extracted from local populations, they could have been funneled through provincial centers
to the Moche Valley. It is also possible that Chimú compounds at Farfán were used to host
feasts and build political alliances rather than amass bulk goods for transshipment (Moore and
Mackey 2008:791). Evidence for textile production and metallurgical workshops at Manchan and
Túcume likely relates to the state’s interest in directly sponsoring or controlling production of fine
or elite goods. Farfán and Túcume are also located at strategic points in their respective valleys,
near the north-south intervalley road and along access routes to the highlands. The placement
of these centers shows state concern with the flow of people and information, not only goods,
through the region.
Outside of the provincial centers, the nature of Chimú presence in conquered valleys
can be used to infer state priorities and strategies. In the Jequetepeque, the tertiary
administrative center of Talambo was located at the valley neck, a crucial point in the irrigation
network from which canals fan out to supply much of the lower valley (Eling 1987; Keatinge and
Conrad 1983). Another lower-order administrative center, the Algarrobal de Moro, oversaw field
systems in the northern Jequetepeque (Mackey 2004). The strategic positioning of these Chimú
administrative compounds suggests that the state was interested in directly controlling
61
agricultural production (Keatinge and Conrad 1983). Based on their survey of the lower
Jequetepeque, Dillehay and Kolata (2004; Dillehay et al. 2004) point out that investment in
agricultural infrastructure, particularly canal systems, increased dramatically in the Late
Intermediate Period, as compared to the earlier Late Moche occupation of the valley. Rather
than coping with environmental instability by periodically relocating to more productive areas, as
during the Late Moche period, Chimú-period populations engaged in large-scale projects to
expand and reinforce irrigation networks, ultimately intensifying agricultural production in the
valley.
Farther north, in the Lambayeque Valley, the Chimú imposed lower-level administrative
centers onto the existing settlement pattern (Tschauner 2001). Tschauner’s survey of
Lambayeque Valley settlement patterns shows little change at lower levels of the settlement
hierarchy (2001:114) or in the organization of the local subsistence economy. However, the
placement of lower-level state administrative centers transcended existing local polity borders,
suggesting that rather than ruling through these existing local hierarchies the Chimú imposed
direct, if uneasy, territorial control over Lambayeque production and population. In the Casma
Valley, valley-wide settlement patterns remained largely unchanged by Chimú conquest. New
settlements founded during the Chimú period, however, were concentrated in the agriculturally
productive lower valley, suggesting that the Chimú intensified agricultural production in the
Casma (Mackey in press; Mackey and Klymyshyn 1990). Wilson (1988:351) describes a similar
situation in the agriculturally rich Santa Valley.
At each of the three regional centers, Chimú presence looks different archaeologically,
which suggests that Chimú strategies varied throughout the empire (Mackey 1987, 2006, in
press). Farfán, in the Jequetepeque Valley, had been a secondary Lambayeque center before
Chimú arrival. The Chimú destroyed existing Lambayeque compounds and built their
62
administrative architecture on this co-opted terrain (Mackey 2006; Mackey and Jaúregui 2004).
They did not incorporate local styles into administrative architecture or allow local lords to reside
at the site. The presence of burial platforms in Compounds II and VI, a feature reserved for
royalty, suggests that Farfán administrators were members of the royal family. Manchán, in the
Casma Valley, was newly founded during the Chimú period but does not contain a royal burial
platform. Architecturally, it is a mix of rectangular compounds in the Chimú style and
agglutinated compounds in the local style of the Casma polity (Mackey and Klymyshyn 1990,
Vogel and Vilcherrez 2008). Mackey (2006; in press) suggests that Chimú administrators co-
existed, and possibly shared rule, with local lords at Manchán. A large commoner population
lived outside the compound walls, leading to further interaction between local residents and
Chimú administrators. At Túcume, already an important center of the Late Sicán polity at the
time of Chimú arrival, the state remodeled existing structures rather than building its own. One
important Chimú-period addition to the site, a burial platform, indicates the presence of Chimú
royalty at the site, but continuity in local styles suggests that local lords continued to reside at
Túcume as well.
Outside of the provincial centers, the level of Chimú control over rural elites and the local
population also varied. In the Lambayeque Valley rural hinterland, Chimú presence seems to
have been strongly felt. At lower level administrative centers in the Lambayeque, such as
Patapó, Chimú and local architectural styles are juxtaposed, but not integrated, and Tschauner
(2001) argues that local lords lived under the supervision of Chimú administrators. On the
Pampa de Chaparrí, Hayashida (2006) finds clear changes in use of land and intra-settlement
organization during the Chimú and Inka regimes 6. Compared to long-term stability in settlement
6
Hayashida (2006: 252) acknowledges the difficulties in distinguishing Chimú and Inka occupations,
based on the lack of systematic ceramic seriations, the conservative nature of utilitarian ceramic style
63
patterns through the previous Sicán periods, the short Chimú and Inka occupations were
characterized by rapid change, and particularly by centralized management of the more
productive fields (some fields were newly enclosed by walls in the Chimú-Inka period [Figueroa
and Hayashida 2005]) and highly visible supervision of agriculture from newly constructed
administrative compounds. Intra-settlement organization, as seen in wall construction method
and room configuration, also changed dramatically in Chimú and Inka period sites. Chimú and
Inka populations were more likely to live in larger, internally subdivided structures, as opposed
to the free standing, widely spaced rooms of previous periods. These different layouts,
according to Hayashida (2006:256), would have created “greater visibility of household
members and their activities in the Sicán period as people moved between rooms in view of
their neighbors, and greater segregation of households in Chimú/Inka times.” Thus changes in
the valley’s political organization impacted not just land use and agricultural production in the
rural hinterland, but also the organization of domestic space at the village level.
In the Casma Valley, in contrast, control over the local population seems to have been
less direct. At Manchán, Moore (1985) found little evidence for state control over the lower class
domestic economy. Koschmieder (2004; Koschmieder and Vega-Centeno 1996) argues that
Chimú administrators lived alongside resettled members of the local population at the lower-
level administrative center of Puerto Pobre 7. While administrators did not directly control the
household organization of the local population, domestic patterns show signs of what
Koschmieder (2004:548) calls processes of acculturation. Local Casma utilitarian ceramic styles
and forms were replaced by or hybridized with Chimú styles and forms. Culinary fusion is also
during the short Chimú and Inka occupations, and the scarcity of “classic” Inka ceramics at rural coastal
sites. In order not to overestimate Chimú period sites, she lumps the two periods together in her analysis.
7
Mackey’s Casma Valley survey identified this site as Chimú-Inka on the basis of surface collections
(Mackey, personal communication 2009).
64
visible, as initial sharp differences in faunal assemblages between Chimú and Casma sectors
narrow over time.
In the Jequetepeque Valley, there is evidence for significant political and religious
autonomy at the local level. Cabur, a local lord’s palace continued to be occupied after Chimú
and Inka conquest (Sapp 2002). Though the palace was remodeled during the Chimú period,
Sapp (2002) argues that changes followed the local style rather than emulating elements of the
Chimú canon. In a similar vein, Swenson’s (2007a) work suggests that while hinterland
ceremonial centers incorporated some elements of imperial Chimú architecture, these centers
show considerable local diversity. Based on this evidence, Swenson argues that ritual
production remained in the hands of local communities even after Chimú conquest. Based on
elite and public architecture, it would seem that Chimú administrative control did not greatly
affect the activities of local elites in the Jequetepeque Valley.
2.2.4.6 Scenarios of Chimú rule in the Jequetepeque
The Jequetepeque Valley, then, provides a particularly good context in which to assess
the archaeological record against two broad, opposed constructs of Chimú rule and its impact
on the local population. Both of these scenarios find some support in the literature I have
reviewed above. The Late Intermediate Period occupation of Pedregal spanned the
Lambayeque and Chimú periods. The site’s location 8, near Lambayeque and Chimú political
centers and adjacent to rich agricultural lands (Figure 2.4), makes it likely that if Chimú rule did
reshape local production or daily household practice, such effects would be felt at Pedregal.
8
This site, located at UTM coordinates 17M 665544.474E 9192012.364 N (PSAD 56) was identified by
Hecker and Hecker (1990: 30-31) as sites 65 and 66 (Ruinas y Cementerios Pedregal). It was also
identified by the Proyecto Pacasmayo survey (Swenson 2004).
65
If, as Moore and Mackey (2008; Mackey in press) argue, the Chimú ruled the La Leche
to Casma Valley region directly, the impact of Chimú rule would be felt strongly in provincial
communities and households. Chimú conquest marked a dramatic transition in the political
structure of the Jequetepeque Valley. Pacatnamú was abandoned and focus shifted to Farfán,
where existing architecture was razed, new administrative compounds were constructed
according to imperial architectural canons, and members of Chimú royalty arrived to administer
the movement of people, goods, and information through the valley. Land use, settlement
patterns, and agricultural strategies changed, and administrative compounds like Talambo were
imposed at strategic points. Direct administration of rural agricultural production would allow the
Chimú to exploit the agricultural capacity of valleys like the Jequetepeque, a central motivation
for Chimú expansion. In the Moche Valley heartland, there is clear evidence that the local
economy was directly controlled and administered by the state, and the Pampa de Chaparrí
case suggests that Chimú rule and the resulting reorganization of land use and agricultural
production affected household organization and the domestic economy even in the provinces. In
this case, we would be likely to see clear changes in the rural domestic economy in the
Jequetepeque, as households adapted to new tribute demands and the reorganization and
intensification of agricultural production in the valley.
On the other hand, if as Covey (2008:321) suggests, the Chimú ruled largely indirectly
through existing hierarchies of local lords, then we would expect to see little reorganization at
the level of rural, non-elite households. The view from hinterland elite sites in the Jequetepeque
suggests that Chimú rule involved reorganization only at the highest levels, and did not strongly
affect local authority and ritual practice. Several case studies of provincial households
elsewhere in the Chimú empire, such as at Manchán, suggest that state control over lower class
domestic economies was limited. The relatively small storage capacity of Chimú provincial
66
centers, compared to provincial Inka installations, suggests that the extraction of bulk staples
from local populations was less important in the Chimú political economy than for the Inka. The
evidence for extensive craft production by attached specialists in the SIAR and the wide
distribution of artifacts in the Chimú state style also suggests that the Chimú political economy
may have been strongly focused on wealth finance. In this case, rural domestic economy should
remain relatively untouched by Chimú rule.
67
3.0 RECONSTRUCTING CULINARY PRACTICE AT PEDREGAL
To identify changes in the range and scope of domestic culinary practice and other household
activities at Pedregal, my excavations and analysis sought to identify which foods were used,
what processing and preparation methods were preferred, and how food processing,
preparation, and consumption were spatially organized during different periods. Multiple lines of
evidence, including lithic, ceramic, organic, and architectural data, were used to reconstruct
culinary patterns at Pedregal. By working with multiple lines of evidence, my hope was to
generate a more complete view of foodways and other domestic activities at Pedregal than
would studies based solely on organic remains.
3.1.1 Food processing
One way to reconstruct the nature and spatial organization of crop processing is by
looking at the distribution of processing equipment such as grinding stones (batanes and
chungos) and other lithic tools (Crown 2000; Gero and Scattolin 2002; Goldstein 2008; Hendon
1997; Sweely 1998). For example, Crown (2000) has related changes in grinding stone size
through time to the changing role of maize in Southwestern US cuisine, and to changing
patterns of women’s processing labor, while Hendon (1997) analyzed the placement of metates
at Copán to reconstruct the social relationships between the women who used them. While I
68
planned to record the position of batanes at Pedregal and analyze groundstone and chipped
stone tools from domestic assemblages, the small sample of such artifacts limited the
conclusions I could draw from these materials.
Residue analysis from processing equipment and studies of pollen and phytoliths can
directly link processing equipment such as groundstone tools to the food being processed
(Adams 2002; Pearsall 2000; Pearsall and Piperno 1993), but budgetary and time constraints
placed these methods out of the scope of the present study. Instead, I focused on
macrobotanical remains. Deposits of macrobotanical debris have been used to reconstruct crop
processing sequences (Hillman 1984, Reddy 1997) and the spatial distribution of processing
activities (Hastorf 1990, 1991). Ethnoarchaeological studies in the Andes (Sikkink 1988, 2001)
have shown that botanical remains outside the immediate hearth area tend to represent
processing rather than consumption. By comparing the proportion and density of different plant
species in domestic deposits during different occupational periods, I identified the range of
plants being processed and used in Pedregal households and found changes in the intensity of
processing through time. I also used spatial analysis of the density and ubiquity of botanical
remains and processing equipment in domestic compounds to attempt to identify specialized
processing areas.
3.1.2 Food preparation and consumption
Archaeologists have approached diet in a number of ways, including bone chemistry
(Ambrose 1993; Schoeninger and Moore 1992) and reconstructions based on faunal and
botanical data (Gumerman 1991; Pozorski 1979, 1982) My goal, however, was not simply to
reconstruct diet at Pedregal. Rather, I was interested in comparing the relative proportions of
69
different plant and animal species and the distribution and concentration of macrobotanical and
faunal remains across several households and through time, in order to gauge how the nature
and organization of household food preparation and consumption varied.
Macrobotanical and faunal remains were relatively well-preserved at Pedregal, and were
recovered both during excavation and by finescreening soil samples. Recovering soil samples
systematically, rather than only sampling features with dense organic remains, has been shown
to better represent the distribution of botanical and faunal remains across different household
contexts (Hastorf and Popper 1988; Lennstrom and Hastorf 1995; Pearsall 2000). For example,
hearth features are only representative of a subset of domestic culinary activities. Organic
remains from hearths and the areas immediately surrounding them are often particularly
indicative of household food preparation and consumption as compared to those recovered from
middens or patios, because cooking and eating occur around hearths (Sikkink 1988:83).
Ethnoarchaeological studies have indicated that hearth loci often contain larger bone fragments
(Stahl and Zeidler 1990) and denser concentrations of botanical remains, representing fuel,
food, and trash (Sikkink 1988:77), than other areas of the household which would have been
kept clean of debris during occupation.
I recovered and processed soil samples from each excavated context in the LIP
residential sector at Pedregal in order to identify spatial and temporal variations in food
processing and preparation. The spatial patterning of organic debris, especially small bones and
macrobotanical remains, can be a more reliable indicator of household activity areas than that of
other artifact classes such as ceramics, which are rarely deposited in their location of primary
use (Hayden and Cannon 1983; Schiffer 1985; Sinopoli 1991). Although many studies
(Manzanilla and Barba 1990; Matthews 2005; Parnell et al. 2002) have turned to microdebris,
pollen, and soil chemical analyses to reconstruct household activity areas, microdebris and
70
pollen analyses were not part of the present study. However, portions of the bulk soil samples
systematically recovered during excavation were conserved for future study of these materials.
I also focused on fixed features such as hearths, grinding stones, and storage pits to
reconstruct the spatial patterning of activities in Pedregal houses. The distribution of these food-
related features has been used to reconstruct the scale and organization of food preparation
(Gero and Scattolin 2002; Goldstein 2008; Hendon 1997). Hearths shared among several
domestic units, for example, have been used as evidence that cooking was organized at a level
above that of the nuclear family (Goldstein 2008), while differences in hearth size and context
have been argued to indicate functional specialization in preparation activities (Gero and
Scattolin 2002; Koschmieder and Vega-Centeno 1996).
In addition to the food remains themselves, I also used ceramic assemblages at
Pedregal to reconstruct household culinary practices. A considerable amount of archaeological
attention has been paid to the relationships between vessel function, vessel form, and technical
attributes such as size, thickness, shape, and temper (Arnold 1985; Henrickson and McDonald
1983; Rice 1987, 1989, Sinopoli 1991; Skibo 1992). Studies have used changes in vessel
function and size in domestic ceramic assemblages to trace diachronic changes in household
storage, the scale of food preparation, reliance on different cooking methods, and household
participation in preparing feasts (Braun 1983; Brumfiel 1991; Crown 2000; Ikehara and Shibata
2008; Sassaman 1999, Smith 1985).
An exemplary approach to ceramics as culinary equipment is Bray’s (2003a, 2003b)
study of Inka state ceramic assemblages in the provinces. Bray (2003a, 2003b) assigns culinary
functions to the different Inka forms based on ethnohistoric descriptions of Inka cuisine and
examination of the technical attributes of different vessels. She points out that open-mouthed
vessel forms like ollas were more appropriate for activities such as cooking stews, while vessels
71
with restricted openings or spouts were better suited to transporting and pouring liquids like
chicha. Ultimately, this analysis allows Bray to argue that Inka ceramic assemblages in the
provinces emphasized serving chicha and meat, central components of Inka political feasts. In
the Jequetepeque Valley similar relationships between vessel form and function have been
supported by associations between food offerings and vessel forms in Lambayeque burials at
Farfán (Cutright 2005, 2007).
At a basic level, the Pedregal assemblage included vessels used for wet cooking,
serving, storing liquids, and fermenting chicha. In order to chart the spatial distribution of
different vessel forms and identify diachronic changes in the function of domestic ceramic
assemblages, I classified diagnostic sherds by vessel form and function, and according to
attributes such as thickness, paste and temper, surface finish, vessel form, and rim diameter.
3.1.3 Storage and disposal
In Late Intermediate Period households at Pedregal and other sites (Koschmieder and
Vega-Centeno 1996; Topic 1982; Moore 1985), food was stored in subfloor pits or vessels
embedded in the floor, as well as in small storerooms or storage bins. Household storage
capacity can be compared in relative terms by calculating the volume and spatial organization of
storage features and the proportion of large storage vessels in household ceramic
assemblages. At Pedregal, I was interested in charting changes in the proportion of large
vessels for storage and chicha fermentation in household assemblages and identifying changes
in the spatial patterning of storage features.
Disposal plays a key role in shaping the archaeological record, and archaeologists have
devoted a good deal of attention to identifying patterns in how and where different kinds of
72
artifacts are likely to be discarded (Hayden and Cannon 1983; LaMotta and Schiffer 1999;
Schiffer 1985; Siegel and Roe 1985). Based on these studies, I think it likely that little household
refuse remained in the location of its primary use at Pedregal. Small artifacts swept off floors
and outdoor activity areas might have accumulated around the edges of patios, while other
waste might have been dumped outside the house compounds in quebradas or over the edge of
the escarpment to the south of the LIP residential area. On the north coast today, organic refuse
and other discarded items often accumulate on the edges of outdoor living spaces until they are
burned. More bulky items might have spent time in provisional discard, accumulating near
houses before being removed or buried. Such items are also likely to have been left when
houses were abandoned. Rare or valuable artifacts such as large grinding stones or metal and
lithic tools would have been curated and carried with families when they abandoned the village.
Children and dogs likely acted to further disperse discarded objects, and abandoned structures
or rooms might have been reused as corrals or dumps.
In sum, my analysis does not rely on assuming that items were found in the positions of
their original use, nor on assuming that excavated materials represent the full range of
household activities. Instead, I was interested in making relative comparisons of artifact
assemblages between early and late LIP occupations and among households. In order to make
these comparisons, I had to assume that members of the different households followed broadly
similar disposal patterns (i.e. that one household was not more likely to throw fish remains into a
quebrada, while another buried fish remains in pits near the house). I also had to assume that
the refuse used in construction at each house related mainly to the activities of that house. In
addition to comparing artifact assemblages, I focused on fixed features like hearths to try to
identify the spatial patterning of household activities.
73
3.2 OUTLINE OF FIELDWORK AND EXCAVATION STRATEGIES
3.2.1 Excavation strategies
In order to generate the artifactual and spatial data outlined above, excavations were designed
to recover a sample of household contexts. Three different household units were non-
systematically selected for excavation, and six excavation units were placed in each one (see
Table 3.1). This strategy was chosen to maximize undisturbed, preserved contexts while
allowing me to reconstruct vertical and horizontal feature and assemblage variability. Pedregal
has been intensively looted and disturbed by the construction of a modern road and airstrip, so
excavations were preferentially located to maximize the chances of discovering undisturbed
contexts. Excavation units also were preferentially placed near walls or in corners to maximize
stratigraphic resolution. On the Pampa de Faclo, post-depositional processes such as deflation
and wind and water action affect the visibility of stratigraphy and tend to collapse and
homogenize different events. Since walls offer protection from these processes, excavation
units near walls usually had more complex stratigraphic sequences and better-preserved walls
than units placed in open areas (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of deposition and post-
deposition processes at the site).
Table 3.1. Excavated areas and volumes
Sector Area Unit Area (m²) Volume (L)

1 PP-1 1 365.75
1 6.25 1972.65
4 9 3933.7
2
A PP-32 2.25 632.55
PP-33 2.25 793.85
3 6.25 2655.25
4
6 2.4 880.5
74
PP-27 2.25 720.35
Sector Area Unit Area (m²) Volume (L)
4 PP-28 2.25 612.1
5 PP-29 2.7 592.1
2 6.25 2275.95
5 7.5 2571
A 6
PP-2 1 356.6
PP-31 2.47 572.3
7 PP-30 2.25 712.585
total 56.07 19647.235
PP-3 1 249
1 PP-4 1 607
PP-5 1 329
PP-8 1 411
PP-9 1 570
2
PP-10 1 362
PP-11 1 913
B PP-14 1 1035.05
3 PP-15 1 538.85
PP-16 1.5 866.4
PP-12 1.56 1551.8
4 PP-13 1.25 1032.65
PP-21 2.25 2343
5 PP-6 1 200
total 16.56 11008.75
1 PP-17 1 162.5
2 PP-19 1 162.3
C PP-20 2.25 457.15
3
PP-22 1 369
total 5.25 12159.7
2 PP-7 1 200.25
3 PP-18 1.5 224.85
D
4 PP-26 1.5 70.5
total 4 495.6
1 PP-23 1 202.75
2 PP-24 1 243.45
E
3 PP-25 1 351
total 3 797.2
75
The excavation strategy was also designed to expose the relationships between
features, artifacts, and architecture to identify activity areas and spatial patterns. Small randomly
placed test pits would not expose enough contiguous space to allow these relationships to be
identified. Since one of the central goals of this project was to identify changes in household
activities and assemblages through time, I excavated units to sterile to identify earlier
occupations and obtain a comparable sample of materials from the entire sequence of domestic
occupation at Pedregal. For this reason, I chose not to expose wide areas belonging to the
same occupation, since given the limited time and budget of the project, such a strategy would
likely have restricted focus to the latest moment of occupation in the residential sector, and
possibly to only one household.
A mixed excavation strategy was developed to address both horizontal (spatial) and
vertical (temporal) differences at the site. Two large (2x2m-3x3m) units were placed in each of
the three compounds selected for testing and excavated to sterile. Two smaller (1x1m-1.5-1.5m)
test pits were placed in or around each of these three compounds to increase the sample of
interior and exterior spaces in each compound. In addition, test pits were placed in other
compounds and external areas to better understand the diversity and spatial organization in the
residential sector (see Table 3.1 for excavated area and volume in each sector). In Chapter 4, I
describe the placement of each unit and provide an overview of the excavated contexts and
materials.
Excavations proceeded by natural levels, though thick layers were sometimes divided
into arbitrary levels to provide greater vertical control. When features were identified, they were
excavated as separate contexts within levels. Sampling from multiple floor, fill, and feature
contexts allows the nature of botanical deposition and preservation to be assessed across
excavated areas rather than simply in feature contexts (Lennstrom and Hastorf 1995). Soil
76
samples of approximately three liters were collected from each excavated context (level and
feature). Because of the generally high levels of preservation at the site, three liter soil samples
were of ideal size to provide sufficient materials while not proving too time-consuming to
process. In addition to these systematic samples, scrapings from the top of floors were taken in
several areas across the floor and noted on the planview of that floor. This strategy was
designed to identify spatial variation in floor assemblages, but since floors were usually clean
this strategy did not provide much useful information in the end. Samples were carried to the lab
for fine-screening and sorting, thus providing a systematically-collected, comparable sample
from each context in Sector A.
After soil samples were bagged, the remaining sediment from each context was
screened through ¼ inch screens, and all artifacts and organic remains were separated and
bagged according to material. All diagnostic and nondiagnostic sherds larger than thumbnail
size were collected. The volume of each context was measured by counting the number of 10
liter buckets removed and noted on the excavation form (see Appendix A). This allowed artifacts
to be standardized by excavated volume as well as by sherd count and weight.
Small test pits were placed in Sectors B, C, D, and E to explore temporal and functional
relationships between the sectors and obtain a sample for comparison to Sector A. As in Sector
A, these units were placed non-randomly to avoid clearly disturbed areas and address specific
questions of function or stratigraphic relationships. Soil samples outside Sector A were taken
only from contexts judged to be particularly rich in organic remains. Otherwise, the same
excavation procedures were followed across all sectors.
77
3.2.2 Laboratory procedures
In the field, excavation forms and bag labels were identified to sector, area, unit, level, and
feature if necessary (see Appendix A for bag tags and level forms). When bags were entered
into the lab register, they were given a unique bag number. In the database, the bags from each
context were linked by assigning each context a unique context number (see Appendix B for
excavation data by context). Analysis and processing then proceeded according to the nature of
the material and the level of resolution desired.
Soil samples were measured by volume and passed through a series of fine screens,
following a procedure similar to the one outlined by Gumerman (1991). Materials from ¼ and
1/8 inch screens were denoted the ‘large fraction.’ All cultural materials were recovered from the
¼ inch screen. From the 1/8 inch screen, plant parts, bones, diagnostic shell (only the apex, not
body fragments), and other artifacts were recovered, but carbonized wood and any ceramic
fragments were not. These remains were bagged by material and marked ‘large fraction.’ From
the sediment smaller than 1/8 inch, a one liter sample (or all if less than one liter) was retained
and the rest was discarded. This ‘small fraction’ was passed through a one mm screen and any
botanical materials and bones were separated, bagged, and labeled ‘small fraction.’ A sample of
the material that passed through the one mm screen was taken, but time did not permit it to be
screened through a 0.5 mm screen as Gumerman (1991) outlines. Large fraction samples were
analyzed along with the rest of the bags in their material class, while small fraction samples
were sent to the ARQUEOBIOS lab in Trujillo for microscopic identification.
Botanical materials were identified and quantified at the lab house in Pacasmayo by the
author, using reference materials and a small comparative collection (see Appendix C for
botanical data). Materials were identified to genus or species when possible, and to plant part
78
(stem, seed, rind, etc). Total whole and partial parts were recorded. For maize, cob fragments
were considered any fragment that represented a full cross-section of the cob. Cob fragments
were quantified by the number of rows of kernels. Loose cupules were counted, and the total
added to the number of cupules on the cob fragments to obtain a total number of cupules in
each context. Counting different plant parts separately provided data on plant processing
patterns. Counts of carbonized and noncarbonized parts were also made, to investigate
formation and postdepositional processes. The majority of plant parts recovered (excluding
wood and cane fragments) were not carbonized.
Identification and quantification of faunal materials (both mammals and fish) were carried
out at the ARQUEOBIOS lab in Trujillo with the aid of an extensive comparative collection and
additional resources (Vásquez and Rosales 2007) (see Appendix D for faunal data). Remains
were identified to species and part, and the Number of Identified Specimens (NISP).
ARQUEOBIOS also identified small fraction remains and performed starch grain analysis on
non-systematically sampled sherd residues. Shellfish were identified to species and MNI, NISP,
and weights were calculated by Licenciado César Jaúregui Vilela in the Pacasmayo lab house,
with the aid of a comparative collection.
In the lab, sherds were washed, labeled, and separated into diagnostic and
nondiagnostic categories. All diagnostic sherds were drawn by project members in 2006, and
then analyzed and photographed by the author in 2007. Variables such as thickness, paste
color and temper, surface treatment, and rim diameter were recorded, and sherds were
identified by form and type. Appendix E presents detailed results of ceramic analysis and
defines the types used in analysis. Nondiagnostic sherds were counted and weighed, and basic
analysis recorded data on thickness, paste, and surface finish in order to identify functional
variation in the composition of the nondiagnostic assemblage.
79
Lithic artifacts were rare, but were measured, weighed, and described in the lab. Other
small artifacts such as beads, spindle whorls, and metal objects, were cleaned, drawn,
photographed, weighed, and described before being wrapped in acid-free paper. Other artifacts
recovered, including textiles and cotton fragments and coprolites, were described and recorded.
In-depth textile analysis was not conducted due to funding constraints, and also because textile
data was unlikely to contribute directly to answering the questions outlined by the project.
Textiles were cleaned and consolidated before being wrapped in acid-free paper for
conservation.
All artifacts recovered at Pedregal, with the exception of radiocarbon and maize samples
exported to the US for further analysis, were turned over to the Instituto Nacional de Cultura in
Trujillo in August 2007, along with a final inventory listing the contents of each bag and a final
report detailing excavation and analysis. Artifacts are stored in the INC storage facility at Huaca
el Dragon.
80
4.0 EXCAVATIONS AT PEDREGAL
The site of Pedregal covers 5.2 ha. Preliminary observations and initial mapping with compass
and tape at the site allowed identification of five distinct sectors, demarcated on the basis of
existing spatial divisions such as perimeter walls, differences in architecture, and presumed
function (Figure 4.1). Within each sector, areas were defined based either on distinctions in
superficial architecture and artifacts or artificially, to create spatial subdivisions in the absence of
surface remains. Based on chronological markers such as superposition and diagnostic
ceramics, occupation of the site began during the Middle to Late Moche periods (A.D. 300-850),
continuing through the Late Intermediate period (A.D. 1000-1470) to the Inka period (A.D. 1470-
1532).
4.1 THE MOCHE OCCUPATION: SECTORS C AND E
During the Middle and Late Moche periods Pedregal was a small village; there is no evidence
for public or monumental architecture dating to this period. Pedregal was one of many Moche
villages scattered through the lower valley on both sides of the river (Hecker and Hecker 1990;
Swenson 2004). During this time, the largest site in the lower valley was Pacatnamú, at the
81
Figure 4.1. Map of Pedregal
82
mouth of the river; Pacatnamú’s Moche occupation reached its height during the Middle Moche
phase (Donnan 1997:12).
No visible surface architecture pertains to this occupation, and with two exceptions test
pits failed to detect any subsurface architecture or features. Evidence of this Moche domestic
occupation is largely confined to the northernmost sectors of the site, Sectors C and E (Figure
4.2). However, a sample of wood charcoal from an early level in Sector A (Area 6, Unit 2, Level
10) submitted for radiocarbon analysis returned a Middle Moche date (A.D. 400-550, calibrated).
This date suggests that the Moche occupation of this area was originally more extensive than is
currently apparent, or that Moche materials were incorporated into fill used by Late Intermediate
Period occupants of the site. The presence of LIP ceramics associated with the carbon sample
supports this latter scenario.
Sector E, the northernmost extent of the site, consists of a dense scatter of plainware,
utilitarian sherds covering an area of 1.3 ha. In order to characterize this early occupation of the
site and to compare early household life at the site to that of later periods, three 1x1 m test pits
were placed in Sector E (PP-23, PP-24, and PP-25). None encountered subsurface architecture
or features. Deposits in Sector E are shallow and deflated, and sterile subsoil is located at an
average of 20 cm below the surface (Figure 4.3). Particularly dense cultural deposits in this
sector are best explained as concentrations resulting from wind and water erosion and general
soil deflation. Most refuse appears to be domestic in nature, consisting of ash and charcoal,
thick-walled utilitarian sherds, and shell and bone remains. Ceramic styles resemble Middle and
Late Moche utilitarian assemblages reported elsewhere in the valley (Mauricio 2007, Rosas
Rintel 2003, Ruiz Rosell 2006, Swenson 2004) (Figure 4.4).
83
Figure 4.2. Sector E (above) and Sector C (below)
84
Figure 4.3. Typical profile from Sector E (PP-24)
Figure 4.4. Selected Late Moche vessels. a-c) platform ollas; d-i) jars; j) tinaja
85
Sector C is a large quadrangular space, 114 m north-south by 110 m east-west, and
delimited by perimeter walls of double faced, undressed stone. Like other contemporaneous
rectangular public compounds northwest of Pedregal on the Pampa de Faclo (Swenson 2004,
2007), there are no apparent internal divisions within this structure. It is possible that any
internal architecture has since been destroyed, since much of Sector C was impacted by the
construction of a landing strip by hacienda owners prior to the 1950s and by the erosion of deep
quebradas to the east and west of the site. However, some evidence suggests that the
compound was unfinished, or at the least unelaborated; the perimeter walls are constructed of
no more than three courses of undressed stone and lack foundations, and several sections of
wall in Sector C and the adjacent Sector B (discussed below) seem to be missing rather than
destroyed.
In the absence of internal subdivisions, I arbitrarily subdivided Sector C into three areas,
and four 1x1 m test pits (PP-17, PP-18, PP-20, and PP-22) were placed with the goals of
identifying wall construction methods, clarifying the relationship between the quadrangular
structure and the road that cuts across it, and investigating the sequence of occupation. In the
southern part of the sector, PP-17 and PP-18 revealed shallow cultural deposits consisting
largely of wall fall and other post-abandonment deposits. The walls cleared while excavating
PP-17 showed that the perimeter wall of Sector C continues into Sector B, and that the east-
west wall separating the two sectors was constructed after the north-south wall. The superficial
walls delimiting the quadrangular compound thus likely relate to the Late Intermediate Period
occupation in Sectors A and B discussed below. However, the ceramic sample recovered from
this sector and the stratigraphy of the test pits excavated along the northern edge of Sector C
suggest that this area of the site also represents part of the Moche occupation.
86
Figure 4.5. North profile, PP-22 (Sector C, Area 3)
Figure 4.6. Owl design from Moche face-neck jars
87
PP-22, placed against the north wall of the Sector C compound, revealed a series of
floors and layers of fill extending below the relatively superficial compound wall (Figure 4.5).
Several clearly Moche diagnostics were recovered from features below the wall, including a
fragment of a Moche face neck jar with a press-molded owl neck (Mauricio 2007) (Figure 4.6).
This superposition suggests that the compound wall was constructed over an earlier Moche
occupation. Likewise, PP-20 was placed in order to investigate the relationship between the
Sector C compound wall and the prehispanic road. Though modern destruction made it
impossible to see the relationship between these components, excavations below the wall fall
revealed quincha wall foundations associated with Moche ceramics. It is likely that the Moche
domestic occupation extended beyond Sector E into at least the northern part of Sector C. The
walls subsequently built to enclose Sector C helped to protect architectural features like floors
and quincha walls.
In sum, the Moche ceramic assemblage was composed largely of utilitarian jars and
ollas, no Moche fineware was collected, and there was no evidence for Moche public
architecture. Though the fragmentary architecture uncovered in PP-20 and PP-22 makes it
difficult to reconstruct the organization of space during the Moche occupation, it is most likely
that Pedregal was a small rural village during the Moche period.
4.2 THE LATE INTERMEDIATE PERIOD OCCUPATION: SECTORS A AND B
The Late Intermediate Period occupation of Pedregal was located at the edge of the
escarpment overlooking the Jequetepeque river bottom. To the north of the cluster of
households that makes up the residential zone, villagers constructed two low platform mounds
88
separated from the cluster of households by an open space and a small cemetery. This area
was partially enclosed by a perimeter wall of angular stones connected to the rectangular
enclosure to the north. The LIP occupation of Pedregal covered 2.7 ha. The residential area to
the south was defined as Sector A and the platform mound and cemetery area as Sector B
(Figure 4.7). I will first discuss excavations in Sector A in greater depth before moving on to
outline details of mound construction, chronology, and function in Sector B.
Figure 4.7. LIP residential (Sector A) and public (Sector B) areas
89
4.2.1 Excavations in Sector A
From the six identified compounds of agglutinated rooms 9, three were selected for testing,
based on level of preservation and location. Sector A has not only been subject to intensive
looting, but a modern dirt road also cuts through one household compound. Two large (2x2 or
3x3 meter) units were placed within each of the three compounds and several smaller (1x1m)
units were placed in exterior areas surrounding the compounds in order to test external work
areas and middens associated with each compound (Figure 4.8). Originally, I had planned to
open a larger area in each of the compounds, but the density of features and cultural materials
in each unit and the necessity of excavating each unit to sterile in order to access the full
sequence of occupation meant that we were only able to excavate a small area of each
compound.
4.2.1.1 Area 2
Two large units, Unit 1 and Unit 4, were located in Area 2. Each unit was placed within one of
the rectangular, agglutinated rooms that make up the structure in Area 2, following the
orientation of surface walls (Figure 4.9). The general occupational sequence of these units was
similar. During the initial occupation, features of various sizes and shapes were excavated into
the sterile subsoil, which was smoothed and compacted to create a use surface. In Unit 1, a
second use surface was constructed over the first one.
9
I summarize compound size, construction, and contents in Chapter 5.
90
Figure 4.8. Sector A showing units excavated
Figure 4.9. Sector A, Area 2 showing units excavated
91
No architecture was associated with these features; this area was either an open patio
during this first occupation or was enclosed by a different configuration of walls than that visible
on the surface. In Unit 4, linear features cut into sterile may represent the base of a quincha wall
that originally subdivided this space, though no cane material survives to confirm this
suggestion. Floors were later constructed over these cultural surfaces and the features carved
into them. In Unit 1, the earliest floor (Floor 3) was associated with two banquetas or benches
(Figure 4.10). One banqueta ran along the east wall of the room and was constructed of stone
and mortar, while the banqueta on the north wall was constructed of compacted clay with
plaster on the upper surface. The association between the two banquetas was not clear, but
both of them are under Floor 2 and associated with Floor 3. The eastern banqueta may
originally have been part of a wall that was later remodeled to serve as a bench. Other than the
benches, my excavations exposed no other architecture associated with this floor.
This area was subsequently filled and leveled for the construction of the walls visible on
the surface and the second prepared floor (Floor 2), which was constructed immediately before
the east wall which sits on top of it. Floor 2 was only preserved in the northeast corner of the
unit. Above this wall fragment, the walls were constructed of two lines of the rounded stones
abundant at the site mixed with irregular adobes and joined with mortar (Figure 4.11). The
vertical surfaces of the walls were not finely plastered or otherwise finished or decorated. These
walls enclose a square space of approximately 3x3 m; no door was present in the excavated
walls, so the room must have been accessed from a door on the southern or western wall. The
final floor in this unit, Floor 1, was constructed after the walls and shows multiple episodes of
patching and remodeling, which suggests intense or prolonged use of this space.
92
Figure 4.10. Planview of Unit 1 showing banquetas
Figure 4.11. East wall of Unit 1 showing mixed adobe and stone construction
93
Numerous features associated with these floors are related to food preparation activities.
These include a hearth (Rasgo G) and several large unlined pits that may have originally served
for household storage and were ultimately filled with refuse related to food processing and
preparation. One circular feature (Rasgo M) cut into sterile contained most of a vessel and a
camelid maxila with cutmarks; this may have been a deposit of refuse related to cooking or a
ritual offering. Other small burnt features (e.g. Rasgo F, Figure 4.12) contain charred ears of
corn and likely represent household rituals (see Chapter 8). Overall, the diversity of feature size
and contexts indicates that this area was used for a variety of activities, many of them
apparently related to food preparation and consumption.
Unlike Unit 1, Unit 4 lacked evidence for a prepared floor built over the sterile subsoil but
before the construction of the superficial architecture. The first prepared floor in Unit 4 (Floor 2;
Figure 4.13) is associated with the walls visible on the surface, which form a square room
approximately 4 x 4 m. Like the walls in Unit 1, the walls of this room are also constructed by
two lines of round stones and irregular adobes. Like Floor 2 of Unit 1, this floor also showed
evidence of intense and prolonged use. It also contained a hearth. A second, later floor (Floor 1)
constructed above Floor 2 is associated with the surface walls but shows less remodeling and
other activities; it seems to have been used less intensively or for a shorter time than the
previous floor.
The most recent moment in both units corresponds to abandonment and the subsequent
collapse of the surface walls. Post-abandonment strata consist of rubble from fallen walls and
sediment deposited by wind and rain during ENSO events.
94
Figure 4.12. Profile view of burnt maize offering, Unit 1
Figure 4.13. Plan view of Unit 4, Floor 2 showing hearth and other features
95
Two small test pits (PP-32 and PP-33) were placed in Area 2 in order to widen the
sample of horizontal variation within the area. Because these units were relatively small
(approximately 1x1 m), it is difficult to tie their occupational sequences to those of the larger
units. However, these units served to confirm some of the patterns noted in the larger units,
particularly the prevalence of features excavated into floors and the sterile subsoil. A large
feature in PP-32 was likely dedicated to household storage and subsequently used for refuse
disposal. The only intact vessel recovered during excavation, an olla with a high, carinated rim,
was set into while a small feature (Rasgo J) in PP-33 (Figure 4.14). Textile was present on the
neck of this vessel and likely originally covered the vessel mouth, perhaps related to the storage
of food or liquid inside No macrobotanical remains were found inside this vessel. Residue
(Muestras 2801 and 2806) was sent to the ARQUEOBIOS lab for analysis but no starch grains
were identified. This feature was located under a banqueta of stone and plaster; it thus
represents either the inadvertent abandonment of a vessel or the ritual interment of an offering
below the bench.
The small units also provided evidence for household construction methods. In PP-32, a
double line of canes was uncovered on top of a plastered stone wall. It appears that at least
some of the stone walls in the domestic area served as bases for quincha construction. This low
wall was not apparent on the surface; thus the division of space in the Area 2 compound (and
likely the other compounds as well) was undoubtedly more complex than the layout of walls
mapped based on surface remains.
96
Figure 4.14. Complete vessel in situ
97
4.2.1.2 Area 4
Two large units (Units 3 and 6) and two smaller test pits (PP-27 and PP-28) were excavated in
Area 4 (Figure 4.15). In Unit 3, the earliest visible occupation takes the form of a thick, well-
prepared floor on top of the sterile subsoil. Apart from several small and shallow features, this
unit lacks evidence for the site’s characteristic pattern of many large features cut into the sterile
subsoil; however, some features could have been destroyed when the sterile was leveled for the
construction of this earliest floor.
The earliest floor was associated with a stone wall delimiting the western edge of the
unit; this wall appears not to be associated with the later superficial walls. On top of this floor
was a thick layer of organic material related to camelid husbandry, including camelid coprolites
and algarrobo (mesquite) leaves and other plant parts. After this fill, several layers of cleaner fill
were deposited, interposed with two prepared floors. Only the latest floor was associated with
the visible surface walls, which form a small, approximately 2x2 m rectangular room in the
southeast corner of the larger space.
These floors and layers of fill were cut by a large feature (Feature B/C/G), a round hole
that began near the surface and extended through all the strata to the sterile subsoil. During
excavation, this feature was interpreted as a looter’s hole, but interestingly it was filled with
loosely packed but dense refuse, including plant parts, feathers, and other organic remains.
While this feature fill represents a disturbed context, the material must have been taken from a
nearby deposit of domestic refuse.
Two episodes of offerings were left in the southeast corner of the unit, well after the
floors were constructed and possibly related to the abandonment of the site. On the surface, just
under a thin layer of wind-blown sediment, we uncovered an offering of Spondylus shell and
pierced Nectandra seeds. Under this offering there was a layer of clean, water-hardened sand,
98
and under this thin layer of sand we found more Spondylus and Nectandra in a small (40 x 35
cm) plastered basin. This offering is discussed more fully in Chapter 8.
Unit 6 was located to investigate a storage pit that had been partially exposed by looters.
The profile they cut was cleaned and drawn, revealing the presence of superimposed floors and
a large plastered storage pit filled with organic remains. Excavation of the unlooted area showed
that this pit (135 cm x 100 cm x 94 cm deep) had been excavated into the sterile subsoil and
then thickly plastered (Figure 4.16). Part of this plastered wall was subsequently destroyed by a
large pit (Rasgo H) which also cut into sterile and was filled with dense organic refuse. These
features were notable for their high organic content and plentiful botanical material including all
parts of the maize plant (Zea mays), bean seeds and pods (Phaseolus sp.), cotton flowers,
seeds, and fiber (Gossypium barbadense), and algarrobo (Prosopis sp.), as well as seeds and
rinds from fruits such as guanábana (Annona sp.), lúcuma (Pouteria lucuma), and guava
(Psidium guajava).
Three superimposed, prepared floors were constructed one on top of each other above
the plastered storage pit, sealing it against further use. The most recent floor showed evidence
of intense burning, which had also affected earlier floors underneath. This most recent floor was
associated with the superficial walls in the area.
The two test pits in Area 4 also provided some evidence for food storage. PP-27, located
to the west of Unit 3, failed to uncover a floor, but rather cut through relatively shallow deposits
of ashy sediment and organic refuse. PP-28 was located in an unusual, apparently circular
space, but what seemed on the surface to be circular walls had no mortar, foundations, or
second course. However, under the relatively shallow and loose surface sediment, the sterile
subsoil had seen the excavation of round pits (Figure 4.17). This space could have been related
to the storage of goods in ollas or tinajas.
99
Figure 4.16. Sector A, Area 4, Unit 6 showing plastered storage pit
Figure 4.17. Sector A, Area 4, PP-28 showing round pits cut into sterile
100
4.2.1.3 Area 6
Area 6 contains one of the better preserved and perhaps better constructed compounds. Two
large units, Unit 2 and Unit 5, were placed in this area, along with two test pits (PP-2 and PP-
31). Unit 2 was located in the northeast corner of the compound, straddling an interior wall to
sample two rooms of the compound (Ambientes 1 and 2), while Unit 5 was placed ten meters to
the west, in Ambiente 4 (Figure 4.18). While Units 1 and 4 in Area 2 have similar stratigraphic
sequences, the units in Area 6 show fairly different occupational sequences.
Unit 2 had the deepest sequence of superimposed floors exposed at the site. Three
floors (Floors 3, 4, and 5) run below the exterior and interior walls visible on the surface, and
thus predate their construction. These floors were prepared from compact, sandy sediment that
was subsequently pierced by round features of varying size, including possible postholes and
deep storage/refuse pits. A low banqueta ran along the south side of the unit at a diagonal to
101
the surface walls (Figure 4.19), suggesting that the structure with which it was associated was
built at a different orientation than the structures visible on the surface, which are all oriented
close to north-south. The presence of postholes suggests that this may have been a roofed
space. The density of features in these floors, especially features related to food preparation
and other kitchen duties, is much lower than in Area 2.
Figure 4.19. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 1 showing early banqueta
Above these three lower floors was an unprepared but compacted surface that was
subsequently covered with a ~10 cm layer of fill (Figure 4.20). This extremely dense deposit of
sherds, bones, and other household refuse extended throughout the unit, and was likely used to
raise and level the surface to prepare for the construction of the walls visible on the surface. On
this fill, a wall was constructed to divide the area sampled by Unit 2 into two separate spaces,
as shown in Figure 4.20.
102
Figure 4.20. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 2 showing artifact-dense fill
Two superimposed, well-prepared floors (Floors 1 and 2) are associated with the surface
walls. They are separated by a layer of fill likely intended to level the area before the
construction of the later floor. After these floors were abandoned, wall collapse and naturally
deposited sediments covered the area.
Unit 5 was placed in a nearby room with the intention of obtaining a similarly stratified
sequence, but the sequence of occupation in this room was different than that of Unit 2. The
initial occupation in this room involved intense modification of the sterile subsoil, which was
flattened and compacted into an occupational surface in which many cuy coprolites were
embedded. Thirty-two features were carved into the sterile subsoil. Most were small (averaging
approximately 30 x 30 cm) and roughly circular, and contained limited cultural material.
However, one feature contained a mate bowl and another contained a large, almost-complete
neckless olla (Figure 4.21). It seems likely that at least some of these features were bases into
which storage vessels were set.
103
Figure 4.21. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 5, Level 9 showing features
The stone walls visible on the surface were constructed just above this occupational
surface. Originally, this room was accessible through a door in the west wall, but at some point
in the use of the room this access was blocked with stones, leaving the room to be entered from
some point on the unexcavated walls. The large room (Ambiente 4) visible on the surface was
subdivided into three small interior spaces (Figure 4.22). The floor of the room in the southeast
corner of the unit (Ambiente 4A) is elevated compared to the floors of the rest of the rooms, but
seems to represent the same moment of occupation. The floor in this area showed evidence of
patching, remodeling, and some in-situ burning (Rasgos A and B). As with the other units, Unit 5
was covered with wall fall and sediment after site abandonment (Figure 4.23).
104
Figure 4.22. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 5 showing subdivisions
Figure 4.23. Sector A, Area 6, Unit 5 profile
105
Two test pits, PP-2 and PP-31, were placed in Area 6. PP-2 was situated to determine
the relationship between the prehispanic road and the compound in Area 6. Like Unit 2, PP-2
cut through a series of superimposed floors above a heavily utilized sterile surface. The part of
the unit that extended below the compound and road walls, however, was of limited size, so
very little of each floor in the sequence was exposed. The sequence, however, more resembled
that of Unit 2 than Unit 5, as it displayed prepared floors alternating with layers of fill. The area
of Ambiente 4 sampled by Unit 5 may have remained an external space or an area devoted to
storage while other parts of the compound, such as those revealed by PP-2 and Unit 2,
represent enclosed space used for other activities. The stratigraphy of PP-2 indicates that the
road represents a later moment of construction than the residential compound (Figure 4.24).
The east wall of the road cuts diagonally across the north wall of the Area 6 compound. Strata
associated with the compound wall ran under the road wall, which consisted of only one course
of stones laid in a mortar made of compacted clay.
PP-31, a small 1x1 m unit, was placed to investigate a different part of the compound
(Figure 4.18). The distinguishing feature here was a well-built banqueta with a plastered stone
exterior enclosing fill with a high organic content. The banqueta faced onto a small, 90x90 cm,
space enclosed by the exterior walls of the unit on the north and east sides and a narrow interior
wall on the west. As with the other units in this compound, occupation of this area began with a
heavy utilization of the surface of the sterile subsoil, continued with the elaboration of several
superimposed floors, and ended in strata related to site abandonment.
106
Figure 4.24. Sector A, Area 6, showing juxtaposition of road and LIP compound
4.2.1.4 Other areas in Sector A
To test areas outside the three compounds, two further test pits were excavated and
surface collections were conducted. PP-29 was placed in Area 5 (see Figure 4.8) against one of
the exterior walls of the compound. In this unit, two superimposed floors were placed directly on
the sterile subsoil. These floors were associated with the north-south surface wall and a low
banqueta extending west from the wall. Under the banqueta was a roughly circular feature cut
into the sterile soil and filled with organic refuse. On top of this feature were two textile-wrapped
hair bundles, which are discussed in Chapter 8.
107
PP-30 was placed in Area 7, the apparently open area between Areas 2, 3, and 4 (see
Figure 4.8), in part to test whether this area was in fact open and to help determine the kinds of
activities that took place in the exterior spaces between compounds. No floors were identified in
this unit; the stratigraphy consisted of several layers of loose, ashy soil with some organic
refuse and ceramic sherds. One large pit with dense organic contents (Rasgo D) was dug into
the sterile subsoil. Several linear trenches running roughly north-south and east-west had been
cut into the sterile, and one trench (Rasgo F) contained a line of cane. This exterior space was
thus likely subdivided by quincha walls or windbreaks.
No units were placed in the compound in Area 9 because of the level of disturbance
from modern construction and the likelihood that deposits close to the edge of the escarpment
would be shallow. Areas 1 and 8, on either side of the prehispanic road, were identified as
cemeteries based on the absence of surface walls, the presence of human bone on the surface,
and heavy looting. Surface collection in these areas recovered finer ceramics than excavations
in domestic deposits. Diagnostic sherds included a pedestal base from a Lambayeque
blackware bottle, the rim and shoulder of a Chimú blackware bottle, and the rim and body of a
redware Chimú-Inka aryballoid vessel (Figure 4.25), as well as burnished blackware and
redware plates, numerous ollas, rallador sherds 10, and bowls.
10
The presence of rallador fragments on the surface of cemeteries is interesting. In a previous analysis of
Lambayeque burial assemblages at Farfán (Cutright 2005, 2007) I have argued the vessels typically
included as burial offerings represent a limited selection from the range of forms in use. At Farfán, no
ralladores were included in Lambayeque burials. Their presence on the surface of Pedregal cemeteries
indicates either differences in burial patterns or the mixing of domestic and cemetery deposits.
108
Figure 4.25. Lambayeque, Chimú, and Chimú-Inka fineware sherds from Pedregal
Figure 4.26. Stratigraphic division between early and late LIP in Sector A, Area 6, Unit 2
109
4.2.1.5 Late Intermediate Period households
Excavations in LIP households revealed a complex sequence of occupation in most units.
Superimposed floors, fill, and features contained abundant evidence of domestic activities,
particularly activities related to food processing and preparation, animal husbandry, and craft
production. In general, floors in each unit could be divided into those that articulated with the
surface architecture and those running under surface walls that were constructed prior to the
final occupation of this area (Figure 4.26). This stratigraphic division forms the basic ‘early’ and
‘late’ LIP division that is the framework for my analysis of change over time. Residential
architectural features indicate a complex division of space beyond the configuration of walls
visible on the surface in Sector A.
4.2.2 Excavations in Sector B
To the north of Sector A, a flat open space separated the residential area from two low platform
mounds (Figure 4.27). Part of this area was used as a cemetery and has been extensively
looted, but the area to the west of the road was largely undisturbed by looters. Dense mounds
of sherds cover the surface of this part of the site. Three 1x1 m units (PP-3, PP-4, and PP-5)
placed in this area identified pit features excavated into the sterile subsoil but I found no
architectural features associated with the deposits of ceramic sherds. The cemetery in Sector B
(Area 2) was badly looted; three attempts (PP-9, PP-10, and PP-11) to sidestep the looting and
recover undisturbed burial contexts were unsuccessful. However, a unit placed at the edge of
the road (PP-8) uncovered a portion of plastered floor, suggesting that at least part of this area
had been covered by a prepared surface.
110
Figure 4.27. Sector B showing units excavated
Pedregal’s two platform mounds are 1-2 m high and approximately 30 m om a side.
Extensive looting has given them an amorphous shape, though they were likely originally
rectangular. I employed a combination of test pits and looters’ pit profiles to gain insight into
mound construction and attempt to recover materials from undisturbed contexts so that
construction could be dated.
The two platforms were constructed in different ways. Profiles from looters’ pits and two
test pits (PP-15 and PP-16) show that Platform 1 (Area 3) was formed by piling up layers of
fairly clean fill alternating with layers of corn stalks (Figure 4.28). Between these layers of fill are
111
prepared compacted platform floors, suggesting that the platform grew slowly over time as one
floor was used, then more fill was mounded up and another floor prepared. Lack of
correspondence between different layers of fill in different profiles suggests that individual areas
were covered by fill in small episodes, rather than organized and coordinated episodes that
covered the whole platform in a homogeneous layer of sediment. Cleaning the bottom of the
deepest looters’ profile revealed a layer of fill with dense organic refuse, including a long length
of twisted vegetal cord that contrasted sharply with later layers of clean fill.
Platform 2 (Area 4) was constructed using somewhat different methods. Looters’ pits
and two test pits placed at the edges of the mound (PP-12 and PP-13) revealed an adobe
retaining wall on the northern, eastern and southern sides of the mound and, at least in some
areas, solid adobe construction. In the test pit PP-13, several courses of adobes still remained
in this wall, sitting on a plastered floor that extended below the platform. However, a test pit (PP-
21) placed in the center of the mound revealed that the platform was not solid adobe. Instead,
this unit cut through multiple layers of loose fill (sand and cultural materials) interspersed with
and stabilized by plastered floors.
112
Figure 4.28. Platform 1 profiles
113
Figure 4.29. Platform 2, plan view of looter’s cut (Profile 4)
Profile 4 (from a looter’s pit on the east side of Platform 2) provided the most insight into
this platform’s construction (Figure 4.29). This profile revealed a complex sequence of
construction and remodeling, with three distinct episodes of renovation. First, a long north-south
retaining wall of adobes with thick mortar was built, enclosing somewhat haphazardly laid
adobes and thick mortar. After this wall was laid and plastered, a second wall of adobes was
built and plastered to extend 50 cm to the east, turn the corner, and continue south. Finally, a
third wall was built outside the first two. This kind of sequential construction, in which the
footprint of the mound increases over time, is reminiscent of that seen in much larger mounds
on the north coast, such as the Huaca de la Luna in the Moche Valley, as well as at smaller
Moche and LIP ceremonial structures in the Jequetepeque (Swenson 2004). These repeated
114
construction episodes suggest that this mound, like Platform 1, was in use for an extended
period of time, during which it was renewed and remodeled.
Ceramic and brick data allow both platforms to be dated to the LIP, and tentatively to the
Lambayeque period (A.D. 1000-1350). Chronological details are discussed more fully in
Chapter 8, where I consider platform construction and use in relation to changes in Pedregal
ritual through time. Dense deposits of ceramic and organic refuse recovered from Sector B
represent assemblages distinct from those associated with domestic debris, and likely relate to
feasting activities. The function of this space and its relation to the ritual life of the community is
discussed more fully in Chapter 8.
4.3 THE LATE HORIZON: SECTOR D
The final occupation of the site is represented by the prehispanic intervalley road which cuts
across the site. Hecker and Hecker (1990:30-31, 87) identify this road (their Camino B) as one
of fifteen road fragments identified in the valley. The fragment that crosses Pedregal angles
south through the Portachuelo de Guadalupe, then runs straight across the pampa until
intersecting with the embankment of the river bottom at Pedregal (Figure 4.30). The river bottom
is heavily farmed, subject to periodic flooding, and crossed by the multiple and shifting channels
of the river, leaving no trace of the road. The road picks up again on the south side of the river
to cross the present-day Panamerican Highway and run south toward Cerro Chocofán.
115
Figure 4.30. Lower Jequetepeque Valley showing location of prehispanic roads. Redrawn
from Hecker and Hecker (1990)
116
Figure 4.31. View of road north from Pedregal
Figure 4.32. Sector D Area 1 PP-1 profile showing road and post holes
117
As it runs from the foothills to the north toward Pedregal across the Pampa de Faclo, the
road is visible on the surface as a flat space five to six meters wide, bordered on either side by
low lines of angular rocks piled relatively haphazardly without mortar (Figure 4.31). Test pits
placed along this part of the road in Sectors C (PP-18, PP-20) and E (PP-26) of Pedregal reveal
that these rock lines are no deeper than the surface course of rocks, which sit on a shallow
foundation of compacted sediment. The road cuts through the compound walls of Sector C,
though recent destruction makes it impossible to view this cut with any greater resolution. The
road runs straight into Sector B, and cuts across the western platform mound (Platform 1)
before becoming lost in the heavily looted cemetery. Excavations in this area (PP-8) show that
the road did indeed continue, and ran above several previous floors and use surfaces in the
area.
By the time the road enters Sector A, its edges are more clearly defined by a rock wall
with two faces constructed with the same round stones used to construct the domestic
compounds in Sector A. Test pits placed along the road in Sector A show that here too the wall
is relatively shallow and was constructed late in the sequence of occupation, cutting through a
wall in the Area 6 compound and running above a line of posts and deposits of domestic refuse
in PP-1 (Figure 4.32). The rock walls delimiting the road do not run all the way to the edge of the
embankment, but rather ends 80 m before of the present edge. The road extends 40 m farther,
delimited by faint hollows rather than rock walls, and then ends altogether in an open space in
front of the embankment. Interestingly, the area in which the road ends is not, at least at
present, a convenient way to descend from the top of the high embankment to the valley floor.
Rather, it is necessary to climb down the narrow quebrada almost 200 m to the west.
The road, then, cuts across Pedregal, evincing considerable disregard for existing public
and residential architecture. It is possible that the village was abandoned by the time the Inka
118
conquered the Jequetepeque and converted nearby Farfán into an important Inka provincial
center in A.D. 1470 (Mackey 2006), and thus there was no village population to object when the
intervalley road was routed through the site. It is also possible that the road was directed
through a populated village to impress the strength of Inka rule upon the valley’s population. 11
Whether or not Pedregal was abandoned when the Inka road was constructed, the fact
that the road cuts through a platform mound speaks to a certain level of disregard for existing
social and religious formations. On the flat pampa, mounds are clearly visible for several
kilometers and are distinct features on the landscape. By cutting through a mound, even one at
an abandoned site, the road alters the existing ceremonial landscape of the pampa. Such an
alteration is interesting in the context of other observations about Inka rule in the Jequetepeque.
Based on the presence of local Lambayeque components in the Inka occupation of Farfán,
Mackey (2006) proposes that Inka administrators in the Jequetepeque shared rule with local
lords to a greater extent than did the Chimú and suggests that the Inka left intact many aspects
of local identity and sociopolitical hierarchies. However, the placement of the intervalley road
through Lambayeque and Chimú-period mortuary and ceremonial architecture at Pedregal
suggests that in this case, the Inka did not leave local settlements intact.
11
I am indebted here to Chris Donnan for his observations about Inka rule and the positioning of the road
during his visit to the site in 2006.
119
5.0 THE PEDREGAL HOUSEHOLD
5.1.1 The architecture and domestic space of Pedregal households
During the Late Intermediate Period, Pedregal families lived in compounds of irregularly sized,
rectangular, agglutinated rooms (Figure 5.1). The LIP residential sector of Pedregal includes at
least five distinct compounds of agglutinated rooms, with the looted Area 3 possibly
representing a sixth (see Figure 4.7 for a plan of Sector A) 12. Based on divisions visible on the
surface, each compound is made up of 5-12 rooms. Excavations show that Pedregal residents
maintained, repaired, and remodeled these interior and exterior spaces, and that room function
and spatial organization changed within each compound over the course of the LIP occupation.
Intense occupation and domestic activity created a sequence of superimposed, renovated and
repaired floors cut by storage and hearth features and separated by layers of fill and refuse in
most excavated units (see Chapter 4 for excavation details).
Compounds were constructed largely of double faced walls of the round smooth cobbles
abundant in surrounding quebradas; construction materials could thus have been conveniently
and expediently gathered. Some walls were constructed of a mix of stone and a few irregularly
12
No Late Moche architecture is visible on the surface of Sectors C and E, and limited excavations in
these sectors uncovered few architectural features. No residential architecture can be dated to post-LIP
moments at the site. Therefore the following discussion applies only to the LIP occupation of Pedregal.
120
sized adobes. These adobes are not standardized in size and color, and seem to have been
used opportunistically and perhaps even scavenged from other constructions, rather than being
Figure 5.1. Domestic compound in Sector A, Area 2, Pedregal
produced specifically for use in house walls. Internal walls of quincha (upright canes inserted in
the ground and interlaced with horizontal canes) likely further subdivided internal spaces and
delimited external spaces. At Pedregal, the occasional recovery of in situ quincha and the more
frequent observation of linear trenches that likely served as quincha wall foundations are
evidence for the use of quincha windbreaks and walls. As observed in PP-32, some walls may
have been a combination of stone foundations with quincha walls built on top to increase wall
height without compromising stability. Some interior spaces were roofed, based on the presence
of postholes in some excavated units, but as in ethnographic examples, these roofs did not
need to be very substantial.
These construction methods have great historical depth on the coast. During the colonial
period, Cobo (1990[1653]) reported that low, square quincha houses were the most common
kind of construction in small towns on the coast. In the village of Moche, in the Moche Valley,
121
most houses were constructed from adobe, tapia (rammed earth), or quincha in the 1940s
(Gillin 1947). All of these methods continue to be used on the coast today, although now
concrete block or brick construction is preferred when possible. Quincha walls are usually
constructed from caña brava (Gynerium sagittatum) and usually plastered, though I have also
observed walls made from maize stalks in the Jequetepeque Valley. Quincha walls were also
used as windbreaks around household yards, both in 1940s Moche (Gillin 1947) and today on
the coast. In the 1940s, Moche roofs (often consisting only of reed mats) were supported by
wooden beams but were intended largely to provide shade and were rarely watertight, since it
only rains during El Niño years, and then only sporadically.
Inside Pedregal compounds, residents prepared floors by compacting and smoothing
fine-grained silty clay into thick, even layers. Pedregal floors, however, were not as finely
prepared or as thick as the floors of elite residences reported at sites like San José de Moro
(Prieto 2005). Floors were generally clean, though sometimes guinea pig coprolites or broken
shell were compacted into floors where they had been patched or remodeled. In addition to
prepared floors, we observed use surfaces that were more irregular, less carefully prepared, but
compacted and leveled.
Spaces inside Pedregal houses were shaped by internal subdivisions (stone and adobe
or quincha walls) and architectural features such as plastered benches (banquetas). Most
excavated banquetas ran along walls around the perimeter of rooms, and could have been used
for sitting or sleeping (at other sites, such as in the SIAR of Chan Chan, banquetas were also
used to support grinding stones [Topic 1982]). Rooms at Pedregal tended to be rectangular or
square, and ranged in size from about 3x3 m to 8x15 m. A number of the larger rooms
excavated were subdivided by thin internal walls and sometimes by differences in floor height,
as in Unit 5. The floor plan of the compounds was very likely more complicated than the layout
122
visible on the surface, since these internal dividing walls only became apparent upon
excavation. Access to rooms was through doorways in the walls, and usually from other rooms
and not via hallways. Access patterns changed through the history of the compounds’ use, as
evidenced by the sealed doorway and other remodeling episodes identified in Unit 5. We did not
excavate sufficient doorways to draw wider conclusions about access patterns or changes
through time in room access.
Within each compound, rooms were likely dedicated to functions including storage, food
preparation and consumption, other general work, and sleeping. On the north coast in general,
kitchens can often be distinguished by the presence of embedded grinding stones (batanes)
and hearths. No in situ batanes were recovered at Pedregal, though a large, well-used batán
was observed on the surface in Area 4 13.
In Unit 4, a hearth feature was cut into the floor near the center of the room and partially
ringed by stone cobbles (Figure 5.2), similar to the hearths described by Gillin (1947) in Moche
houses. Ethnographically, hearths were constructed of lumps of adobes or stones set on the
ground to support cooking pots. Dung and occasionally wood was burnt in Moche households in
the 1940s, though richer households had more elaborate adobe stoves (Gillin 1947).
13
The absence of batanes may be due to the fact that the Pampa de Faclo was occupied throughout late
prehistory and likely during the Colonial period. The general scarcity of large flat stones in the area would
cause batanes to be curated and moved, rather than left in place. I assume that batanes from Pedregal
would thus have been removed during abandonment or were subsequently looted.
123
Figure 5.2. Hearth feature, Sector A, Area 2, Unit 4
In many internal spaces, Pedregal residents cut pits as large as a meter in diameter into
floors and use surfaces. Pits often extended into the sterile subsoil below the houses. One large
storage pit in Unit 6 had been carefully prepared and plastered, but in general these pits were
not modified. They tended to contain dense deposits of organic, ceramic, and other refuse in
loosely packed sandy matrix. Many of these pits were likely originally intended for either storage
or trash and were ultimately filled with refuse and other sediment. Smaller pits dug into sterile
could have been used to support large vessels used for storage or brewing chicha; in fact, three
such features at Pedregal contained ceramic or gourd vessels. This evidence for storage at
Pedregal corresponds well with Cobo’s (1990[1653]) description of colonial storage practices, in
which food staples were stored inside the house in large jars or alcoves, or outside in bins.
Outside the walls of the compounds, excavations revealed a less complex depositional
sequence, likely because areas unprotected by walls were more subject to deflation and wind
erosion, making it harder to distinguish different events. It does not appear that the open areas
124
between rooms had prepared floors (though these could have been worn away by wind and
sand). Structures, windbreaks, or subdivisions may have been constructed of quincha in the
spaces between the stone compounds, as evidenced by linear features and a few remaining
cane fragments in PP-30; the division of space may thus have been more complex than that
suggested by the surface architecture. Many of the external areas tested contain dense
deposits of ashy refuse and storage or trash pits excavated into sterile sediments, suggesting
that many open areas were loci of trash disposal and burning as well as other daily activities.
Pedregal households were larger and had more complex layouts than the households
described ethnographically by Gillin (1947). Household layout in Moche was variable, but
houses were most often rectangular, with a sala, or living room, opening onto the street, a
bedroom and a kitchen at the back of the house, and an open back yard that was often roofed
and protected by a windbreak on at least one side (Gillin 1947:40) (Figure 5.3). Many daily
activities, including socializing, food processing, and small animal husbandry, took place in this
open patio, and families tended to use interior rooms only for sleeping, cooking, and storage.
Figure 5.3. Typical house plan in 1940s Moche. Redrawn from Gillin (1947:Figure 4)
125
The contents of Pedregal households relate to the daily activities of cooking, eating,
sleeping, and production of particular goods. Most artifacts recovered from Pedregal household
contexts pertain to food processing, preparation, and consumption. Sherds from utilitarian ollas,
bowls, plates, jars, and storage vessels made up the bulk of household refuse, along with
botanical and faunal remains. Most units contained lithic tools such as small grinding stones, but
many flake tools must have been made and used expediently as prepared tools were rare. The
most common lithic tools in the overall Pedregal domestic assemblage were clodbreakers for
use in nearby fields. These were manufactured at Pedregal from large cobbles. Wooden and
bone tools were also found, though these were also rare. One modified llama bone (Figure 5.4)
could have been a blank or debitage from tool production, which suggests that bone tools could
have been manufactured in households. Another household craft activity represented in the
household artifact assemblage is textile production; metal needles, wooden spindles, and
spindle whorls made of ceramic or stone were found in domestic compounds (Figure 5.4).
Textile scraps were present in household refuse, though elaborately woven or colored
textiles were rare; most excavated textile fragments were simply woven in a limited color
palette. Some personal adornments such as stone and shell beads were found in households,
but these were more common in looted burial areas. Fragments of vegetal matting and rope,
perhaps related to the mats and hammocks ethnographically reported in north coast
households, were also found in household compounds. Ample camelid and guinea pig feces, as
well as the remains of fodder, show that animals were commonly raised in or around household
compounds.
126
Figure 5.4. Selected household tools from Pedregal: a) modified camelid metapodial; b)
lithic grinding tool; c) copper needles; d) lithic and ceramic spindle whorls; e) copper tweezers; f)
wood spindle
127
5.1.2 Pedregal domestic architecture in regional perspective
Pedregal dwellings most resemble lower class LIP residences at Chan Chan, Manchán,
Galindo, and Pacatnamú. At Pacatnamú, lower class Lambayeque households consisted of
clusters of agglutinated rooms with less elaborate construction than nearby huaca-complexes
(Gumerman 1991) (Figure 5.5). Layout, size, and construction materials were similar to those
observed at Pedregal; some structures were built of adobe, but most were constructed from
quincha walls, sometimes on cobble foundations like those at Pedregal.
Quincha was the main construction material in the lower class sector of Manchán, a
Chimú secondary center in the Casma Valley (Moore 1985). Floor plan and room size varied
greatly, and the layout of space within houses was remodeled through time. Features such as
hearths and buried storage vessels were common at Manchán, as were large hearths with
adobe supports associated with production debris. Moore (1985) suggests that such hearths
were used for craft production rather than food preparation. None of these larger hearths were
found in Pedregal households.
128
Figure 5.5. Plan view of Commoner Room Group 75 at Pacatnamú. Redrawn from
Gumerman (1991:Figure 2.7)
Figure 5.6. Plan view of Room Complexes 1-4, Unit BJ, SIAR. Redrawn from Topic
(1982:Figure 7.2)
129
Lower class residences (SIAR) at Chan Chan are similar in layout and construction
material to residential compounds at Pedregal. These compounds were not planned as entire
structures, but rather grew organically through the addition and subdivision of rooms (Topic
1982:151) (Figure 5.6). Within these large multi-family compounds, Topic (1982) identifies
single-family residences by the presence of a kitchen. Though the number of other rooms
varied, each residence had only one kitchen. Kitchens in the SIAR also had relatively
standardized characteristics; all included the entrance to the residence, a hearth, and a bench.
Hearths in SIAR kitchens were located near the center of the room. Grinding stones were
embedded in banquetas in some SIAR kitchens. SIAR households also contained numerous
storage bins containing items associated with craft production (Topic 1982), but similar bins and
associated craft items were not encountered during excavations at Pedregal. Chimú households
at Galindo, also in the Moche Valley, also had broadly similar features, including banquetas
flanking rooms and central hearths (Lockard 2005).
In the Lambayeque Valley, Hayashida’s (2006) survey identified clear distinctions
between Sicán and Chimú/Inka domestic structures on the Pampa de Chaparrí. Though no
excavation data is yet available, Hayashida (2006) observed that Sicán populations tended to
live in widely spaced, free-standing rooms, while Chimú/Inka period domestic structures tended
to be larger, internally subdivided structures, similar to the agglutinated room compounds at
Chan Chan, Manchan, and Pedregal.
These similarities in general layout and organization of compounds, rectangular
agglutinated rooms, mixed stone, adobe, and quincha construction, and built-in features such as
banquetas constitute a lower valley LIP residential tradition shared among Lambayeque,
Jequetepeque, Moche, and Casma Valleys (but see Tsai 2007 for contrasting patterns in the
middle valley). However, household features at Manchan (Moore 1985) and in the Chan Chan
130
SIAR (Topic 1982) suggest that lower-class households at these larger sites may have been
more involved in craft production than households in rural villages like Pedregal.
5.2 SOCIAL AND FAMILY ORGANIZATION
What kind of social groups lived in the compounds of agglutinated rooms at Pedregal? Moore
(1985) suggests that Spanish chroniclers and colonial visitas overemphasized the nuclear
family, and tended to overlook extended family households or other kinds of living
arrangements. At Manchán, Moore (1985) explicitly investigates whether the lower class barrio
was a labor camp where male corvée laborers resided during their service to Chimú lords or
whether it was permanent home to men, women, and children. He finds that there is more
evidence to support the coresidence of men, women, and children in long-term households than
to suggest the short-term presence of single-sex labor parties. Much of the evidence Moore
(1985) uses to support the presence of families (hearths for food preparation in each residence,
as opposed to large communal kitchens, artifacts related to women’s and men’s tasks such as
spindle whorls and agricultural tools, long-term use and remodeling of structures) was also
found in Pedregal compounds, so we can conclude that families resided here as opposed to
some other kind of social group.
Ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and archaeological data offer some insight into family
structure and its relation to the coresidential unit in the Andes. Cobo (1990[1653]) reports that it
was not unusual for men to have multiple wives and concubines in the colonial period, but does
not further elaborate on family structure. Rostworowski, however, argues that most men had
only one wife (1995). The husband and wife pair was the unit of Inka mit’a labor obligations and
131
is usually regarded as the basic unit of production in the Andean domestic economy.
Ethnohistoric accounts also suggest that a wide range of ritual or fictive kinship relationships
functioned to widen social networks and reinforce alliances (Hernández Astete 2002). Gillin
(1947) mentions the wide-ranging practice of creating fictive kinship alliances in the form of
relationships of compadrazgo in 1940s Moche, a practice that is common today on the coast. In
Moche, Gillin reports that a household usually consisted of a husband and wife and their
children, though blood, affinal, and fictive kinship relationships extended far beyond this group.
However, as Weismantel (1988) points out, at different points in the family life-cycle the co-
residential unit can change, incorporating unmarried daughters and their children, young
childless married couples, foster children, and elderly parents. In some cases, newly married
couples may sleep in separate structures but still share food preparation tasks and eat meals in
the kitchen of the husband’s parents. Thus we should not expect to find only one nuclear family
(husband-wife-children) unit in each Andean household.
Goldstein (2008) argues that prehispanic Mantaro Valley households were not nucleated
and economically self-sufficient. Grinding stones, essential tools for food preparation, were
unevenly distributed among the households Goldstein analyzed, and not every household had
one. Goldstein suggests that groups of related people shared activities of production and
consumption organized at the supra-household level. This kind of organization may well have
characterized the agglutinated room groups at Pedregal.
132
5.2.1 Demography and population at Pedregal
At Pedregal, since residential compounds are visible on the surface, it makes most sense to use
dwelling space to estimate the population 14. In the middle Jequetepeque, Tsai (n.d.) measured
the floor areas of several modern rural houses near the archaeological site of Las Varas (Tsai
2007) and compared them to the number of people living there. His data show a strong and
significant linear relationship between floor area and number of occupants. I used the equation
for the best-fit line generated by Tsai’s data as well as two conversion factors used in the cross-
cultural literature (Kolb 1985; Naroll 1962) to estimate population at Pedregal (Table 5.1).
Not all rooms were necessarily used as dwelling spaces, so I calculated two different
areas for each compound: the total area enclosed (or at least partly enclosed) by walls visible
on the surface, and a conservative estimate that excludes large spaces that may have been
patios or corrals (spaces with a short axis of more than about five m, based on Moore’s (1985)
findings that it would have been difficult to roof spaces wider than about four meters). These
areas do not take into account quincha rooms, which would not be visible on the surface.
Considering the three conversions and the different sources and directions of error, it is
probably not unreasonable to think of the total population of the site as somewhere between 50-
100 people. Estimates for individual compounds are between 10-20 residents, and most
compounds fall into a similar range.
14
These estimates are based only on the stone-walled compounds visible on the surface. It is possible,
though unlikely given the depositional processes, site characteristics, and extent of ceramic scatter
described in Chapter 4, that other compounds were present but are not visible on the surface.
133
Table 5.1. Population estimates for Pedregal compounds
Total area Conservative area Naroll

Compound Rooms (m2) (m2) Tsai n.d. 1962 Kolb 1985
2 12 214.44 146.82 17--24 15--21 24--35
4 7 242.31 61.95 9--27 6--24 10--40
5 6 319.66 97.85 12--35 10--32 16--52
6 10 216.70 92.99 12--25 9--22 15--35
9 5 182.56 43.75 7--21 4--18 7--30
Total 40 1175.67 443.36 57-132 44--118 72--192
Tsai (n.d.): population = 2.42 + (0.102 x dwelling area)

Naroll (1962): 1 person per 10m2 dwelling area
Kolb (1985): 1 person per 6.12m2 dwelling area)
Cross-cultural studies tend to estimate the average size of nuclear families as slightly
more than 5 people (Kolb 1985: Table 1). This means that each compound probably housed
more than one nuclear family, and that between 10-20 families would have lived at Pedregal.
Since there are five (and possibly six, if the highly disturbed Area 3 is included) distinct
compounds visible on the surface, it is possible that five or six extended families lived at
Pedregal, and that several related nuclear families lived within each extended-family compound.
These families may have shared domestic tasks such as preparing food, carrying water and
fuel, and raising children.
Burial patterns at Pedregal suggest the presence of some social differentiation among
Pedregal residents, but at the same time may have reinforced a sense of community identity.
Cross-culturally, the placement of burials under household floors is one way to signal the
importance of family and household ancestors. At Pedregal, no burials were found during
excavations in household areas, and no human bones were observed on the looted surface of
domestic areas. The families who lived in Pedregal compounds buried their dead in community
cemeteries near the Inka road or in Sector B in front of the platforms, where looting revealed the
134
presence of many human burials. This is a common pattern on the coast; apart from dedicatory
or sacrificial burials, most dead tend to be buried in cemeteries set apart from domestic zones.
The placement of the dead from several families in the same cemetery may signal an interest in
maintaining community, rather than individual family, identity through funerary rites.
Outside of the cemeteries, the presence of fineware sherds on the surface in Sector B
along with other elaborate artifacts found during excavations on the platform suggest that at
least one important person was buried in Platform 2. Sherds from this area are the best
evidence for Chimú state styles at Pedregal. The platform burial(s) have been looted, so it is
difficult to infer too much about who might have been buried there. However, if the person or
people buried in the platform had special access to goods, especially in the Chimú state style,
this might indicate differences in status of class among the families of Pedregal. Differences in
compound architecture and contents are discussed more fully in Chapter 9.
5.3 HOUSE, COMMUNITY, AND LOWER VALLEY
LIP Pedregal probably a small village with less than 100 residents living in extended family
groups. However, social relationships and political obligations would likely have extended
beyond household and community to the wider landscape of the lower valley. Some of these
ties would have taken the form of relationships between families or communities, and others
would have related to the place of Pedregal in the wider political structure of the valley.
Pedregal was not completely self-sufficient, but relied on external ties to obtain important
domestic goods, including coca, pottery, and metal goods. One formulation for how Andean
communities exchanged goods is Murra’s (1972) vertical archipelago model, in which families
135
and communities had access to land in different ecological zones. Mayer’s (2001) discussion of
Murra’s model emphasizes that many goods moved among vertical zones based on social and
fictive kin relationships between families who live in different zones. Gillin (1947) observed a
similar situation on the coast in the 1940s, as families in the village of Moche maintained strong
social ties with families in villages in the Chicama and Virú Valleys. In this conception, exchange
among ecological zones or communities did not necessarily need to be organized from the top,
but rather could have been the product of relationships among individuals, families, or
communities. At Pedregal, such relationships might be visible in differential access to non-local
goods such as coca or particular ceramic or textile styles, which I discuss further in Chapter 9.
Another way in which Pedregal could have been integrated into wider social networks in
the Jequetepeque is suggested by ethnohistorically-based models of north coast sociopolitical
hierarchies. Based on historical documents, Netherly (1984, 1990) proposes that north coast
society was broken into bounded sociopolitical units or parcialidades ruled by a lord.
Parcialidades were organized as ranked moieties at different levels, with one paramount lord
and his parcialidad occupying the top level of the hierarchy. The ranked parcialidad system
served to define the relationships between different social groups, determine water rights, and
ensure that disputes over land or water could be settled by a local lord at the next tier of the
hierarchy rather than requiring the intervention of a central authority.
This system of ranked moieties shaped, and was shaped by, the physical landscape of
the north coast. Netherly (1984) argues that settlement patterns and irrigation systems reflect
dualistic principles and hierarchical relationships at different levels of society. Many authors
(Castillo 2003, Eling 1987, Hayashida 2006, Kosok 1965) have used irrigation systems to define
territorial divisions and, by extension, political units in coastal valleys, employing the central
136
assumption that the residents of lands watered by the same canal would have been politically
unified or aligned.
As the leaders of parcialidades, local lords had access to labor and products from those
who owed them allegiance. In fact, Ramírez (2005) argues that the concept of physical territorial
boundaries was introduced by the Spanish; in the prehispanic Andes, geographical borders
were unknown and political units were defined by the people, and thus the labor potential, under
the control of a particular leader. The system of occupational specialization at the village level
meant that local lords oversaw groups engaged in agriculture, fishing, or the production of
different crafts. One of the roles of these lords may have been to facilitate exchange between
different specialist groups, either as tribute and redistribution or in the form of reciprocal
exchange relationships. This kind of exchange has been observed at late prehispanic sites on
the south coast such as Lo Demás (Sandweiss 1992) and Cerro Azul (Marcus 1987).
In this system, Pedregal would have been linked to wider valley political structures and
economic networks through local lords and through shared canal networks. Residents of
Pedregal would likely have owed labor and tribute to a local lord before the arrival of the Chimú
and after, if the Chimú instituted indirect rule through local hierarchies. In the system of
occupational specialization described by Rostworowski (1977; see also Marcus 1987;
Sandweiss 1992), local lords may also have coordinated the exchange of Pedregal’s agricultural
products for fish and specialized products such as metal, fine ceramics, and Spondylus. While
excavations showed that Pedregal residents had access to these goods, they did not provide
evidence that indicates how these goods might have been obtained. Despite evidence for the
burial of an important person in the platform at Pedregal, none of the domestic compounds
excavated or mapped compare in size or elaboration to the palaces of local lords excavated at
137
Cabur (Sapp 2002) and San José de Moro (Prieto 2005), making it unlikely that a local lord
resided at Pedregal during the LIP.
Pedregal residents likely had access to fields located on the Pampa to the east of the
village, and to fields directly below the site on the valley floor. According to Eling (1987), the
field system to the east of Pedregal was watered by the Farfán Sur (FFS) canal, fed by the
Farfán (FF) canal. Water was originally taken from the Guadalupe canal and flowed west
through canals around Cerro la Calera before reaching the Farfán canal. The Guadalupe canal
begins at 159 masl, in the middle valley, and feeds the Calera, Pueblo Nuevo, Talla, and
Pacanga canals (Eling 1987: 298). Thus a large area, from the Pampa de Cerro Colorado to
Farfán, ultimately drew water from the same canal system. This area does not include either of
the excavated palaces of local lords mentioned above, but does include Farfán and Pacatnamú.
If political entities were mapped onto canal networks, as Netherly (1984) suggests, then
Pedregal would have been part of the parcialidad that included the largest centers, Farfán and
Pacatnamú, in the LIP Jequetepeque. However, excavations uncovered no evidence that would
test this suggestion.
5.4 CONCLUSIONS: THE PEDREGAL HOUSEHOLD
In the Late Intermediate Period, Pedregal was a small village of 50-100 people living in
extended-family residential compounds. These compounds consisted of irregular, agglutinated
rooms similar in layout and construction to lower-class LIP dwellings at other sites along the
coast. Internal and external household spaces show evidence for common domestic activities,
including food processing and preparation, storage, craft production, animal husbandry, and
138
trash disposal. As I explain in the next chapter, Pedregal households were self-sufficient in
terms of food production. However, several important domestic goods, such as coca and
pottery, were obtained through external economic ties, and water rights to valley-wide canal
systems were likely negotiated with other lower valley communities. Ethnographic and
ethnohistoric models suggest that horizontal ties could have linked families at Pedregal to
families in other lower or middle valley communities, while vertical, ranked relationships
between Pedregal and local lords at different levels of the sociopolitical hierarchy could have
been structured by the parcialidad system. In sum, LIP Pedregal, while largely economically
self-sufficient, was composed of households integrated into wider sociopolitical and economic
networks.
139
6.0 PROVISIONING THE HOUSEHOLD AT PEDREGAL
Most of the necessities of daily household life at Pedregal, such as food and water, clothes, fuel,
ceramic vessels, and lithic implements, were obtained or manufactured within a short distance
of the village. The choices of families at Pedregal about how to procure these goods were
shaped by cultural knowledge of ecology and agriculture, the organization of production and
specialization in the valley, and household economic strategies. These choices about
procurement and processing, in turn, structured the material record of household life at
Pedregal.
As procurement choices work within the range of resources available, environmental
fluctuations might have affected the kinds of resources used at Pedregal. Because Pedregal
was not completely isolated and self-sufficient, however, wider social and economic interactions
at the valley level were also responsible for how resources were ultimately used at Pedregal.
Because household provisioning activities are part of these interactions, we might expect some
aspects of provisioning to change as the valley was incorporated into the Chimú state late in the
LIP, especially given the documented Chimú focus on administering and intensifying agricultural
production and extracting tribute from heartland and subject populations.
In this chapter, I discuss how households at Pedregal were provisioned with daily
necessities and explore what assemblages can indicate about the larger strategies pursued by
Pedregal households. In order to place the investigation of provisioning in a wider context, I
140
discuss what we know about the social organization of resource procurement from other
archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic sources, and compare the resources used at
Pedregal to evidence from other sites in the region.
6.1 PROCURING FOOD IN THE JEQUETEPEPQUE VALLEY
The Jequetepeque Valley is a lush green oasis between the dry Pampa de Paijan to the south
and the intervalley desert and smaller Zaña Valley to the north. Pedro Cieza de Leon, an early
Spanish traveler in the region, described the Jequetepeque Valley as one of the most fertile and
densely settled valleys he had encountered as he traveled south from Tumbes (Cieza de León
1959[1553]:321). Calancha (1638) also remarked that a great quantity of fruits and other crops
that grown in the Pacasmayo region. Today, primary crops in the lower valley include sugar
cane, rice, corn, peppers, and tree fruits such as mangos and pacae. A gradual process of
desertification, linked to climate change and also to increased population and water use during
the modern era, has reduced the forests and thickets described by Cieza de Leon to only a few
remnant groves consisting primarily of algarrobo or mesquite trees, called algarrobales. One
modern algarrobal is located on the northern side of the valley, near the Moche site of San Jose
de Moro and the Chimú compounds at El Algarrobal de Moro (Mackey 2004); another is located
on the southern side of the river at Cañoncillo (Warner et al. 2005).
Jequetepeque residents also exploited rich and varied marine and littoral resources,
including fish, shellfish, marine birds and mammals, and seaweed. The resources procured by
prehispanic residents of Pedregal can be compared to assemblages of contemporaneous and
141
nearby sites, as well as to archaeological and ethnohistoric information on the social
organization of fishing, farming, and foraging on the north coast.
6.1.1 Agricultural products and wild plants
Botanical evidence from Pedregal shows that households generally exploited a diverse range of
wild and domesticated plant species. Quantification of plant remains is notoriously difficult. One
concern is preservation. The intense aridity of the coast preserves organic remains, even fleshy
fruits. However, even on the coast particular species or parts of the plant are more likely to
preserve than others. It is much more likely that an avocado’s pit will be preserved than its flesh,
and some plant parts like tubers are only rarely preserved. Such differential preservation makes
it difficult to evaluate the dietary importance of different species. Carbonized remains have a
good chance of preserving, but only remains that either accidentally fell into the fire during one-
time cooking accidents or were used intentionally as fuel or burnt offerings will be carbonized.
As Hastorf’s (Atalay and Hastorf 2006; Hastorf 1991, 1993, 2001; Lennstrom and Hastorf 1995)
fine-grained contextual approach highlights, different species take different paths through the
household, which affects their presence and preservation in different contexts.
A related concern is how to meaningfully compare species that produce many seeds
with those that produce few. Guanábana fruits, for example, can have hundreds of seeds, one
pacae pod can have 10-20 seeds, and avocados and lúcumas only have one, making it difficult
to compare the contributions of these fruits to the diet using raw counts. In order to compare the
relative importance of different species or categories of species (wild vs. domesticated, for
example, or cotton vs. maize) among sectors, households, and occupations, I chose to calculate
the proportion of the total assemblage represented by that category. These proportions do not
142
necessarily accurately represent the actual contribution of each species to the diet, but rather
provide a relative measure for comparing assemblages. Ubiquity is also a useful measure
resistant to the problems of quantification and preservation; it measures how evenly a particular
species is distributed across a set of contexts. Finally, I also compared densities (standardized
by excavated volume and/or sherd count) to identify contexts in which plant remains are
concentrated. In my excavations at Pedregal, the number of plant parts per liter excavated was
very low, ranging from 1.13 parts/L and <0.001 parts/L, and plant density was strongly affected
by post-depositional processes like deflation than proportion and ubiquity measures, so
proportion and ubiquity provide a better picture of the assemblage. Table 6.1 shows the species
identified at Pedregal by proportion of total botanical assemblage and ubiquity.
In order to analyze plant procurement and use at Pedregal, it is logical to break the assemblage
into broad functional categories—fruits vs. maize, food vs. medicine, or wild vs. domesticated
(Table 6.2). However, ethnobotanical studies (e.g. Bussman and Sharon 2006) highlight the
multiple uses of different plant species in medicine, ritual, and daily meals. For example,
algarrobo (Prosopis pallida), or mesquite, is used as camelid fodder, fuel, fertilizer, and food
(Cieza de Leon 1959[1553]). Even the division between wild and domestic species may blur as
wild plants often flourish in the margins of cultivated fields. I will employ functional categories in
order to meaningfully quantify plant remains and attempt to understand how plant use varied
through time and space, but it is nonetheless important to recognize that these categories,
though etically useful, would have been emically fluid.
143
Table 6.1. Plant species at Pedregal by category, proportion, and ubiquity in contexts with
botanical material
Proportion Ubiquity
Classification Common name Classification (n=22,320) (n=494*)
Equisetopsida
Equicetaceae
cola de
Equisettum giganteum caballo/horsetail other uncultivated 0.01 0.41
Dicotiledoneae
Annonaceae
Annona muricata guanábana tree fruit 34.79 70.85
Lauraceae
Persea americana palta/avocado tree fruit 0.18 5.47
Nectandra sp ishpingo medicinal/ritual 0.72 1.62
Capparidaceae
guayabito de
Capparis ovalifolia gentil other uncultivated 0.01 3.44
Capparis angulata other uncultivated 0.06 2.23

Fabaceae other cultivated 0.12 4.05
Inga feuillei huaba/pacae tree fruit 0.28 6.28
algarrobo/
Prosopis pallida mesquite industrial 7.86 51.22
Acacia sp espino industrial 6.1 18.83

Neptunia sp other uncultivated 0.16 2.02
Pithecellobium sp angolo 0.3 4.86
Phaseolus vulgaris frijol/bean bean 0.19 5.26
Phaseolus lunatus pallar/bean bean 0.17 5.67
Phaseolus sp frijol/bean bean 1.16 18.02
Arachis hypogaea maní/peanut other cultivated 0.01 0.81
Canavalia maritima pallar de gentil other uncultivated 0.15 3.32
Crotalaria incana cascabelillo other uncultivated 0.003 0.2
Erythroxylaceae
Erythroxylum coca coca medicinal/ritual 0.24 8.3
Malpighiaceae
Bunchiosa armeniaca ciruela de fraile tree fruit 0.22 6.88
Sapindaceae
144
Proportion Ubiquity
Classification Common name Classification (n=22,320) (n=494*)
Sapindus saponaria choloque medicinal/ritual 0.01 0.41
Malvaceae
Gossypium barbadense algodón/cotton cotton 11.03 47.17
Cucurbitaceae
Cucurbita sp zapallo/ squash other cultivated 0.93 19.03
Lagenaria siceraria mate/gourd other cultivated 2.98 37.65
Myrtaceae
Psidium guajava guayaba/guava tree fruit 0.2 5.67
Umbelliferae 0.01 0.2

Sapotaceae
Lucuma obovata lúcuma tree fruit 0.44 10.32
Apocynaceae
Thevetia peruviana maichil medicinal/ritual 0.02 1.01
Convolvulaceae
camote/sweet
Ipomoea batatas potato tuber 0.15 5.67
Verbenaceae
Phyla sp other uncultivated 0.03 0.61
Solanaceae
Capiscum frutescens ají/chile pepper other cultivated 3.83 35.02
Solanum tuberosum papa/potato tuber ** 0.35
Asteraceae
Spilanthes ureas turre macho other uncultivated 0.01 0.2
Poaceae
Zea mays maíz/maize grain 57.49
cobs/kernels 9.33 55.47
Cenchrus echinatus cadillo other uncultivated 0.18 5.67
Cyperaceae 0.003 0.2
Gigartina seaweed other uncultivated 0.07 2.23
Gynerium saggitatum cana/cane industrial 0.28 4.66
Unidentified unidentified 5.83 49.8
Total 100 100
* Ubiquity among contexts
with botanical material
** Solanum only identified in
phytolith form, no macroremains
145
Table 6.2. Macrobotanical assemblage by category
Proportion Ubiquity
Category (n=22,288) (n=494)
Tree fruit 35.58 73.28
Industrial 17.45 57.69
Cotton 13.55 47.17
Grain 11.46 55.46
Beans 1.88 18.02
Medical/ritual 1.06 10.73
Tubers 0.19 5.67
Other cultivated 9.53 61.13
Other uncultivated 1.14 12.55
Unidentified 7.16 49.8
Proportion Ubiquity
Category (n=22,288) (n=494)
Domestic 79.34 93.52
Wild 20.66 59.31
Figure 6.1. Partial desiccated guanábana
146
Tubers were fairly uncommon, but it is likely that they are significantly underrepresented
in the macrobotanical assemblage. Besides the limited tuber macroremains, all of which were
identified as camote, or sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), starch grains from potatoes (Solanum
tuberosum) were also present on a sample of sherds analyzed by the ARQUEOBIOS lab.
Starch grains from sweet potato and maize were also identified on these sherds. Since this was
a nonsystematic sample, it is difficult to extrapolate anything about the prevalence of these
species in Pedregal cooking. However, I believe that potatoes, and probably tubers in general,
are underestimated in the botanical assemblage summarized in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.
Figure 6.2. Map of the eastern Pampa de Faclo showing location of fields and seed beds
(redrawn from Eling 1987:Figure 56)
147
Figure 6.3. Pampa de Faclo field systems
Most of the cultigens in the Pedregal assemblage could have come from adjacent fields
(Figure 6.2, Figure 6.3). Eling’s (1987) survey of Jequetepeque canals and field system
remnants identified an intensive system of canals, fields, and seed beds, referred to as Farfán
Sur and Farfán Norte, covering the area between Farfán and Pedregal. Soil samples taken from
the Farfán Sur system contained fossil pollen from maize, cotton, and potato or chile plants
(Weir and Eling 1986).
Eling (1987) collected ceramics dating to all periods in prehispanic sequence from these
canals. His (1987:326-329) data suggests that during the LIP, an attempt was made to extend
irrigation west to Pacatnamú, the Moche and Lambayeque center on the Pacific shore, but he
regards these attempts as ultimately unsuccessful. Crossing the deep quebradas that crosscut
the Pampa de Faclo between Cerro Faclo and Pacatnamú would have presented an especially
large engineering challenge. Thus the fields between Pedregal and Farfán, in addition to those
on the river bottom, would have supported Pedregal and other villages on the Pampa de Faclo
148
as well as the large sites of Pacatnamú and Farfán. Eling (1987) suggests that canals originally
ran east from Farfán, watering plot systems along their banks and terraced into the sides of
deep quebradas. At some point (Eling’s surface ceramic collections did not allow him to be more
precise), the last third of this canal was blocked, and extensive field systems covering 200 ha
were constructed (Eling 1987:329). To Eling, such a shift provides evidence for more centralized
control over farming in later periods.
6.1.1.1 Wild and nonlocal plants
Although Pedregal families were provisioned largely from nearby cultivated fields, they
supplemented these resources by collecting wild plants, including wild legumes like faique and
algarrobo and wild herbaceous plants. Wild herbs would have been collected as fodder for
guinea pigs, for medicinal use, and for human consumption. Gumerman (1991:123) suggests
that many wild plants could have been gathered from field margins or from the valley bottom
during the daily walk to the fields, and so foraging for wild plants may have been a largely
opportunistic activity for Pedregal residents as they carried out agricultural tasks.
Some ritually important, nonlocal species were present in the Pedregal botanical
assemblage. Nectandra and maichil (Thevetia peruviana) are rainforest species with ritual and
decorative uses (necklaces of pierced Nectandra seeds were common in Chimú-Inka period
burials at Farfán [Mackey and Jáuregui 2000]). Coca was grown in the middle valley,
approximately 30 km inland from Pedregal, as well as on the eastern slopes of the Andes.
Coastal crops and seafood from the lower Jequetepeque also likely moved up into the foothills
and highlands in exchange for highland crops such as potatoes and high-altitude grains and for
rainforest resources. Pedregal residents relied on exchange with other ecological zones to
149
provision their households with additional important products, even though bulk staples were
procured closer to home.
6.1.1.2 Pedregal plant use in regional perspective
The heavy focus on tree fruits in the Pedregal botanical assemblage is similar to that seen at
LIP sites in the Moche Valley (Table 6.3). Pozorski (1979) screened excavated soil samples
through ¼ inch mesh, and then converted raw plant part counts into percentages of the total
plant diet. In the SIAR, the lower-class barrio of Chan Chan, and at Cerro la Virgen, a rural
farming village (Keatinge 1975), lúcuma and guanábana made the largest contributions to the
plant diet. In fact, Pozorski and Pozorski (1997) point out that in the Moche Valley, guanábana
(Annona muricata) is associated almost exclusively with Chimú sites, and argue that it may
have arrived in this valley after Chimú conquest of the Jequetepeque Valley to the north
(1997:244), where guanábana was present in Lambayeque deposits at sites like Pacatnamú
(Table 6.4). The overall assemblage of wild and domestic species from Chimú sites in the
Moche Valley (Pozorski 1979, 1982) does not differ greatly from that of Pedregal.
150
Table 6.3. Botanical remains at two Moche Valley sites (Pozorski 1979:Table 2)
% of total plant diet

SIAR Cerro la Virgen
Zea mays 8.2 6.6
Arachis hypogaea * 0
Phaseolus lunatus 0 *
Phaseolus vulgaris * 0.5
Gossypium
barbadense ** **
Ipomoea batatas 0 *
Capiscum sp 5.2 8.2
Cucurbita sp. 2.3 1.3
Cyclanthera sp. 0 *
Lagenaria siceraria ** **
Annona sp. 28.3 46.6
Persea americana 3.6 3.9
Inga feuillei * 0.5
Bunchiosa armeniaca 1.3 2.3
Lucuma obovata 50.9 29.8
seaweed ** **
Cenchrus echiatus ** 0
Panicum sp. ** **
Gynerium sagittatum ** **
Scirpus tatora 0 **
Tillandsia sp. ** **
Nectandra sp. ** 0
Acacia macracantha 0 **
Prosopis chilensis ** **
Sapindus saponaria 0 **
Juglands neotropica 0 **
unidentified ** **
*= <0.1%
**=present but not
food
151
Table 6.4. Average frequencies (parts per liter) for the most common plant species in
noble and commoner rooms groups at Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991:Table 3.4)
noble commoner
Pedregal
(average parts/L
species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 in soil samples)
Psidium guajava 16.92 3.32 6.42 7.07 15.72 76.39 34.78 0.04
Annona sp 1 0.6 0.49 2.02 1.5 3.93 2.68 0.59
Other cultivated
fruits 0.41 0.23 0.69 0.44 0.33 1.37 1.22
Wild fleshy fruits 0.8 0.57 1.59 0.73 109.8 9.19 112.01
Phaseolus sp. 0.04 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.11
Wild Fabeaceae 0.12 0.54 1.77 1.37 35.93 4.9 14.36
Acacia sp. and 1.68
Prosopis sp. 8.23 14 3.89 21.49 7.06 9.33 20.32 (Prosopis only)
Zea mays cob 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.06 0.16 0.37
Zea mays kernel 0.94 0.8 1.06 0.46 0.94 0.52 0.6 0.29
Wild herbaceous 2.15 2.42 9.38 1.85 20.62 20.84 254.65
Capiscum sp. 3.75 5.51 3.98 6.29 1.9 0.79 1.53 0.99
Erythroxylum
novogranatense 0.27 0.44 0.1 0.21 0.15 0.1 0.17 0.07
Anadenathera sp. 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.26 0.01 0.07 0.05
Table 6.4 shows the average frequency of primary plant species in noble and commoner
room groups at Pacatnamú. Gumerman (1991)’s soil sample methodology was similar to the
one I followed at Pedregal (see Chapter 3). While I generally used proportions rather than
density measures to discuss the botanical assemblage at Pedregal, for comparative purposes
Table 6.4 also includes the average parts per liter of selected plant species at Pedregal.
Average parts per liter for most species at Pedregal tended to be lower than at Pacatnamú,
since I analyzed soil samples from each excavated context, while Gumerman (1991:19) reports
analyzing “over 500 systematic soil samples…from floors, hearths, bins, niches, and other
contexts.” At Pacatnamú, fruits were among the most frequently recovered plants. Guava
(Psidium guajava) was particularly common in comparison to Pedregal and the Moche Valley
sites (but the guava’s small seeds would not have been recovered from ¼” mesh used by
152
Pozorski). Wild herbaceous plants and wild legumes were also present in high densities at
Pacatnamú, especially in commoner room groups, while maize remains were less frequent, but
more evenly distributed among noble and commoner households than were wild species.
Koschmieder’s (2004) study of subsistence at the site of Puerto Pobre reveals patterns
similar to Pedregal in the Casma Valley 15. According to Koschmieder, Chimú administrators and
local Casma populations both lived at Puerto Pobre. In the early occupation, Chimú and Casma
diet differed notably, but over time diet across the site became more homogeneous as Casma
locals acculturated to Chimú diet and ceramic style. Guanábana, maize, cotton, and algarrobo
are the most common species in both local Casma and Chimú administrative contexts at Puerto
Pobre (Koschmieder 2004:378). Overall, the Pedregal botanical assemblage is consistent with
the broad picture of north coast plant use during the LIP developed at other sites. However,
temporal differences in the macrobotanical assemblages reveal that plant use at Pedregal
changed strikingly through time.
15
Koschmieder’s study was published as a brief article in Spanish (Koschmieder and Vega-Centeno
1996) and a dissertation in German (Koschmieder 2004). I present some of Koschmieder’s broad
conclusions here, but issues of language and data presentation in the dissertation limit the potential for
more detailed, quantitative comparisons to Pedregal.
153
Figure 6.4. Maize proportions in early and late LIP
Table 6.5. Number of kernels on cobs from early and late LIP by proportion of cob
assemblage, with error ranges at 95%
% of total cobs and error ranges
Occupation n 4 rows 6 rows 8 rows 10 rows 12 rows
Early LIP 798 0.38 ±.4 0.5 ±.5 51.75 ±3.5 45.61 ±3.5 1.75 ±.9
Late LIP 503 0.2 ± .4 1.39 ± 1 42.35 ±4.3 53.88 ±4.4 2.19 ±1.3
154
6.1.1.3 Changing plant use through time
In order to track changes in plant provisioning strategies over time at Pedregal, I compared the
proportion of the total assemblage represented by each plant category in the early and late
phases of the LIP occupation 16. As Figure 6.4 shows, maize cobs and kernels made up a
significantly greater proportion of the later LIP botanical assemblage as compared to the earlier
LIP 17; a difference of about 12%.
Maize cobs increased in size slightly, though significantly, through time (Table 6.5). Most
maize cobs in the Pedregal assemblage were fragmented, so cob length could not be reliably
determined. However, number of rows could be measured by counting the number of cupules
around the circumference of each cob and multiplying by two (Staller et al. 2006:491). Most
cobs had either eight or ten rows of kernels, but cobs with four, six, and twelve rows were also
recorded. As Table 6.5 shows, the sample proportion of cobs with ten rows of kernels increased
from 45% to 53% between the early and late LIP occupation, while the proportion of cobs with
eight rows decreased from 51% to 42%. While this change is not very large, the error ranges in
Table 6.5 show that this difference is significant. This slight increase in the proportion of cobs
with ten kernels suggests that a shift toward maize varieties with a greater yield accompanied
the increased focus on maize in the late LIP.
Cotton also increased in proportion the later LIP assemblage as compared to the early
LIP (18% to 28%) (Figure 6.5). Comparison of domestic and wild species (Figure 6.6) shows
that domestic species in general made up a greater proportion of the later assemblage than the
earlier, which suggests a decreased focus on wild species through time.
16
The poor preservation of organic remains from the earlier Moche occupation in Sectors C and E makes
it impossible to compare Moche and LIP botanical assemblages at the site.
17
I discuss relative proportions of maize cobs to kernels and other evidence of maize processing in
Chapter 7.
155
Figure 6.5. Cotton proportions in early and late LIP
This changing picture of provisioning may reflect families’ responses to new economic
demands at the regional level, related to Chimú interest in controlling and intensifying
agriculture in conquered provinces. In the later occupation, Pedregal residents were bringing
home fewer wild resources compared to cultigens, perhaps because their activities focused
more on agricultural production. While they may still have gathered wild plants opportunistically
as they engaged in daily agricultural activities, and in fact the margins of irrigated fields were a
good habitat for these plants, wild species made up a smaller proportion of household refuse
than they did in the earlier occupation. Increasing focus on storable staples like maize rather
than tree fruits and wild resources may speak to a greater concern with producing goods for a
regional tribute economy.
156
Figure 6.6. Wild and domesticated species in early and late LIP
6.1.2 Terrestrial fauna
To supplement agricultural resources, prehispanic residents of Pedregal raised guinea pigs
(cuy), dogs, and camelids. Like botanical remains, faunal remains present some challenges to
quantification. Of the possible measures, MNI (Minimum Number of Individuals) and NISP
(Number of Individual Specimens) are used most commonly in the zooarchaeological literature.
Because the Pedregal faunal assemblage was highly fragmented and whole elements were
157
rare, NISP was chosen as the most appropriate measure. Table 6.6 shows the proportion of the
total assemblage made up by each different mammal, bird, and other terrestrial species at
Pedregal. Camelid and cuy made up the bulk of identified terrestrial faunal remains. These
animals, along with dogs, were raised by Pedregal families at the site. Wild animals such as
birds, reptiles, deer, and rodents made up much smaller proportions of the assemblage.
Table 6.6. Terrestrial faunal species at Pedregal
Proportion of
total NISP
Classification Common name (n=1867)
Mammal 93.25
camelid
Lama sp. (llama/alpaca) 46.28
Cavia porcellus guinea pig/cuy 19.34
Muridae rodent 6.12
Canis familiaris dog 3.11
Odocoileus virginiana deer 0.16
unidentified mammal 18.27
Bird 2.14
Larus sp. gull 0.43
Phalacrocorax sp. cormorant 0.29
unidentified bird 1.45
Reptile/amphibian 3.32
Iguana sp. iguana 1.55
Bufo sp. toad 0.43
Dicrodon sp. lizard/cañan 0.43
unidentified reptile 0.86
Other/unidentified 1.28
Total 100
6.1.2.1 Camelids
Camelids were the most numerous taxon by NISP in the Pedregal terrestrial faunal assemblage.
In the absence of clear morphological indicators, osteometric analysis is used to distinguish
llamas from alpacas. Measurements on one complete phalange from Sector A place it in the
llama range (Vásquez and Rosales 2007). In addition, tooth enamel patterns on two mandible
158
fragments from Sector A allow them to be identified as llamas (Table 6.7). There was no
evidence for alpacas at Pedregal.
Table 6.7. Aged camelid elements at Pedregal
Context Element Age Taxon

Area 2 U-1 Nivel 11 anterior mandible fragment, 5 Lama glama
enamel on both sides
Area 6 U-5 Nivel 6 anterior mandible fragment, 1.7 Lama glama
enamel on both sides
Area 2 U-4 Nivel 1 proximal radius, fused 3.6 Lama sp.
Area 2 U-4 Nivel 2 distal radius, fused 2.8 Lama sp.
Area 6 U-5 Nivel 7 distal metapodial, fused 3 Lama sp.
Area 7 PP30 Nivel 2 distal femur, fused 3 Lama sp.
Area 7 PP30 Nivel 3 distal radius, fused 2.8 Lama sp.
Area 3 PP16 Nivel 11 distal metacarpal, fused 3 Lama sp.
Area 3 PP16 Nivel 15 distal radius, fused 2.8 Lama sp.
Area 3 PP14 Nivel 5 distal metapodial, fused 3 Lama sp.
Area 4 PP12 Nivel 4 proximal radius, fused 3.6 Lama sp.
Camelids were kept at Pedregal and it is likely that at least some were raised there.
Camelid coprolites are ubiquitous in domestic refuse and highly concentrated in certain areas,
such as Unit 3 in Area 4. The combination of coprolites and mesquite seeds and leaves in
earlier strata of this unit suggests that camelids were raised in or near this area. Pedregal
residents consumed immature camelids, which suggests that herds were maintained on the
coast and likely in the village itself. 10% of the elements identified as camelid at Pedregal had
incompletely-fused epiphyses. Two mandible fragments and nine postcranial elements were
more precisely aged (Table 6.7). Ages ranged from 1.7 to 5 years (Vásquez and Rosales 2007),
young animals in reproductive terms. Vásquez and Rosales (2007) suggest that this age profile
represents a concern with culling the herd, possibly slaughtering young males to maintain a
breeding herd of females, but the data is too scanty to support firm conclusions. The age curve,
159
however, is consistent with other north coast sites such as Santa Rita B in the Chao Valley,
where camelid husbandry has been proposed (Vásquez and Rosales 2007).
Camelid pastoralism has traditionally been associated with the highlands, and it was
once assumed that camelid remains on the coast merely indicated the arrival of periodic
camelid caravans from the highlands. Shimada and Shimada (1985) were among the first to
muster ethnographic, iconographic, and archaeological evidence to show that camelids were
raised on the coast, perhaps as early as the Early Horizon, but certainly by the Middle Horizon.
This evidence includes ethnographic descriptions of coastal herds, ceramic vessels depicting
camelid reproduction, and faunal remains of neonatal and juvenile camelids found at coastal
sites. Archaeofaunal studies at Late Intermediate Period coastal sites such as Santa Rita B in
the Chao Valley (Rosales et al. 2006) and Túcume in the Lambayeque Valley (Vásquez et al.
1991) also provide evidence for camelid herding on the coast.
Camelid consumption has often been linked to ritual or high-class contexts, such as
feasts or elite cuisine, and raising and herding camelids on the coast is often assumed to have
been an elite controlled activity, or at least organized at a level above that of the household,
unlike raising guinea pigs or exploiting marine resources. As Shelia Pozorski (1979:179) points
out, domesticated camelids are not only a reliable source of meat, but one that has been subject
to central control. In her study of subsistence in the Moche Valley during the Late Intermediate
Period, Pozorski (1979, 1982) (see Table 6.8) found that the faunal assemblage recovered from
households at Chan Chan contained more camelids than assemblages from rural settlements.
However, since camelid was present at these rural settlements as well, Pozorski (1979, 1982)
suggests that it would have been supplied by a state-organized redistributive system. At
Pacatnamú, Gumerman (1991, 2002) found that camelid remains were more abundant in high-
class households than low-class residences, suggesting preferential consumption by elites (or
160
at elite-sponsored feasts in residential contexts). In Chapters 8 and 9, I discuss variations in
camelid use among different households and sectors at Pedregal.
6.1.2.2 Cuy
Guinea pigs made the second largest contribution to the Pedregal terrestrial faunal assemblage.
Cuy are a ubiquitous component of Andean household assemblages, and are raised in pens
near the kitchens of many Andean households today. The importance of guinea pigs to the daily
diet tends to be underestimated due to their systematic underrepresentation in archaeological
assemblages (Valdez and Valdez 1997). Because they are removed from kitchens, disposed of
in household patios, and regularly consumed by dogs, guinea pig bones are unlikely to be
recovered even from modern household contexts where their consumption has been observed.
Cuy thus may have played a larger role in daily subsistence at Pedregal than is apparent from
the faunal sample.
6.1.2.3 Other animals
Dogs were also part of the Pedregal household faunal assemblage, and the presence of
cutmarks on several dog elements indicates that they were eaten. It is likely that dogs, like cuy,
were raised at the household level and butchered to supply occasional household meals.
Several varieties of dogs have been found in middens at early sites such as Pacopampa,
Chavín, and Kotosh (Schwartz 1997; Wing 1972) and at Late Intermediate Period sites such as
Túcume (Vásquez et al. 1991). The Peruvian hairless dog, or perro viringo, is particularly
interesting because of its apparent late arrival to the Andes: hairless dogs first appear in Late
Moche (~A.D. 750) iconography (Cordy-Collins 1994). Cordy-Collins (1994) suggests that
hairless dogs, which appeared much earlier in the iconography of the western Mexican coast,
161
may have arrived in Perú as a result of prehispanic long-distance exchange, either as food
items or for their medicinal or ritual properties.
It is unclear whether Pedregal residents consumed perros viringos or other varieties of
dog. Hairless dogs can be distinguished from other species by tooth configuration, but the
diagnostic portion of the mandible was not recovered from Pedregal. Figure 6.7 shows the
ramus of the mandible from an archaeological dog specimen from Pedregal and a modern mid-
size hairless dog specimen at the ARQUEOBIOS lab in Trujillo. It is clear that the two differ in
form, making it unlikely that the dog from Pedregal was the same hairless variety as the
comparative specimen. However, we do not know enough about the range of variation in dog
breeds to identify the dogs at Pedregal with any confidence.
Figure 6.7. Comparison of modern perro viringo mandible (below) and partial
archaeological mandible from Pedregal (above)
Wild terrestrial animals, including reptiles and amphibians such as lizards, iguanas, and
toads, and birds such as cormorants, are also present in the faunal assemblage at Pedregal.
However, these species occur in small enough numbers to suggest that they did not represent a
162
large contribution to the diet. Lizards (cañan) are eaten locally in the Jequetepeque Valley
today. While white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) no longer live in the lower
Jequetepeque, deer hunts are commonly depicted in Moche fineline iconography (Donnan and
McClelland 1999). However, actual remains of deer are uncommon at domestic sites,
suggesting that rather than representing a contribution to daily subsistence, deer hunts held
important ritual significance. The only deer elements identified at Pedregal were one metapodial
and two phalanges, though it is possible that other nondiagnostic fragments could have been
included in the unidentified category. Overall, it does not appear that deer hunting occupied an
important space in the food procurement activities of Pedregal residents. Still, the presence of
any deer bones supports at least occasional deer consumption by rural non-elites.
6.1.2.4 Animal use in regional perspective
The Pedregal faunal assemblage is roughly similar to assemblages from other LIP sites in the
Moche and Jequetepeque Valleys. Table 6.8 shows the terrestrial faunal remains from the SIAR
and Cerro la Virgen in the Moche Valley. Pozorski (1979) calculated meat weights of mammal,
bird, fish, and shellfish species at these two sites, and presented them as proportions of the
total faunal diet. The proportions in Table 6.8 are thus not comparable with those from Pedregal
in Table 6.6, which reflect only the terrestrial assemblage. At both Moche Valley sites, camelid
represented an important contribution to the meat diet, though in the SIAR camelids dominated
the faunal assemblage. At Pacatnamú, Gumerman (1991) used an allometric formula to
calculate biomass from the weight of faunal remains. Table 6.9 shows faunal species at
Pacatnamú in average grams per liter in noble and commoner room groups. As I mention
above, camelid contributed more biomass on average to noble households as compared to
commoner households. At Pacatnamú, the SIAR at Chan Chan, Cerro la Virgen, and Pedregal,
163
cuy and dog were present in relatively small quantities, and birds represented an even smaller
contribution to the faunal assemblage.
6.1.2.5 Changing animal use through time
The composition of the terrestrial faunal assemblage does not shift greatly between the early to
late LIP occupations of Pedregal. As Table 6.10 shows, the proportion of the assemblage
represented by camelid elements increased slightly from the early to the late LIP, while the
proportion of unidentified mammals decreased. These differences, though slight, are statistically
significant. However, it is likely that many unidentified elements actually belonged to camelids,
but were too fragmented to allow for concrete identification. Greater fragmentation of the faunal
assemblage in earlier strata may account for this slight difference.
Table 6.8. Faunal remains from two Moche Valley sites (Pozorski 1979:Table 1)
% of total meat diet

Unidentified rodent ** 0
Cavia porcellus 0.2 *
Canis familiaris 0.6 0
Otaria byronia 5.1 0
Lama glama 65.7 35.9
Unidentified mammal 10.5 *
Mammals 82.1 35.9
Unidentified bird 1 0.2
Birds 1 0.2
*= less than 0.1%
Table 6.9. Average biomass of animal species from Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991:Table 3.6)
noble commoner
species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lama sp. 5.08 1.44 5.53 11.62 7.34 1.55 1.38
Cavia porcellus 0.64 0.04 0.12 0.32 0.04 0.04 0.21
Canis familiaris 0.13 0.04 0.56 0 0.21 0 0.06
bird 0.12 0.26 0.3 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.13
fish 7.36 4.94 6 5.65 5.65 56.9 17.64
**average biomass/L
164
Table 6.10. Proportions and error ranges at 95% confidence for the most common mammal
species at Pedregal in early and late LIP Sector A
Early LIP Late LIP

Species (n=390) (n=354)
Camelid 35.9 ±6.8 45.2 ±7.2
Cuy 30 ±6.5 34.2 ±7.1
Rodent 3.8 ±3.4 3.1 ±3.3

Dog 3.3 ±3.2 4.2 ±3.7
Unidentified 20 ±6 10.7 ±5.1
Figure 6.8. Bullet graphs showing proportions of total faunal assemblage (NISP) by group
in the early and late LIP, Sector A
165
The most important diachronic change in the consumption of animals, as represented in
Figure 6.8, is in the balance between terrestrial and marine fauna. From the early to the late
LIP, fish proportion decreased as compared to domesticated mammals like camelid and cuy.
The small contribution of birds, reptiles, and amphibians did not change at all. This change
mirrors the decreasing role of wild plants in the diet over time, and points to a general shift in
how Pedregal families were provisioning their households.
6.1.3 Fish
The coastline of the Jequetepeque Valley contains diverse marine and littoral habitats, including
rocky and sandy intertidal and estuarine zones shading into the deep open waters of the Pacific.
Ongoing geological processes of gradual coastal uplift, occasional earthquakes, erosion and
sediment outwash, and aeolian sand deposition change the shape and composition of the shore
over time. Even in the short term, the coast is dynamic. From 2001 to 2002, for example, the
Pacasmayo beach changed from rocky to sandy, and residents remember other changes during
their lifetimes. This means that the coast we observe today may not reflect the distribution of
habitats known by the valley’s prehistoric populations.
Faunal assemblages at Pedregal suggest that residents relied heavily on fish procured
from the ocean and river estuary within several hours’ walk from the village. As with terrestrial
faunal remains, NISP was chosen as the most appropriate method of quantification. Table 6.11
shows the proportion of total fish NISP represented by each taxon identified at Pedregal. The
fish assemblage at Pedregal is dominated by two species: Paralonchurus peruanus (Peruvian
croaker, locally known as suco) and Engraulis ringens (anchoveta). Suco, a large fish that
favors sandy coastal environments, is a commonly caught species by Pacasmayo fishermen
166
today and was a species of central economic importance at Late Intermediate Period sites such
as Túcume (Vásquez et al. 1991) and Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991). The anchoveta has been
a focus of archaeological attention since Moseley’s (1975, 1992) maritime foundations
hypothesis posited that marine resources, particularly the abundant, reliable anchoveta,
provided the foundation for early complex societies along the central coast of Perú. Anchoveta
continue to be common throughout the prehistoric archaeological record on the coast, and are
of continued economic importance to the modern fish meal industry in Perú today. Unlike the
suco, the anchoveta is a small fish that prefers to school in open offshore waters. Anchoveta
prefer colder waters, and their population is greatly affected by the warm water characteristic of
an ENSO event.
Table 6.11. Fish species at Pedregal
Proportion
Species Common name (n=1254)
Mustelus sp. shark/tollo 0.2
Rhinobatos planiceps Pacific guitarfish/guitarra 0.6
Isurus oxyrhynchus shortfin mako/maco 0.1
Engraulis ringens anchoveta 37
Sardinops sagax sagax sardine/sardina 4.3
Galeichthys peruvianus catfish/bagre 0.8
Mugil cephalus flathead mullet/lisa 0.2
Merluccius gayi peruanus hake/merluza 1
Labrisomus philippii trambollo 0.1
Caulolatilus cabezon ocean whitefish/peje blanco 0.2
Trachurus symmetricus murphyi jack mackeral/jurel 0.5
Paralonchurus peruanus Peruvian banded croaker/suco 44.1
Cynoscion analis Peruvian weakfish/cachema 1.6
Sciaena deliciosa lorna 1.4
Sciaena sp. NA 0.2
Stellifer minor minor stardrum 0.5
Unidentified fish 7.2
Total 100
Most other fish species are rare at Pedregal, representing less than 5% of the total
assemblage each. However, species with riverine, estuarine, near-coastal, and open-water
167
habitats are present in the assemblage. Table 6.12 shows the species fished at Pedregal by
habitat. About half of the elements identified come from fish that could have been procured
relatively close to the shore without much investment in specialized fishing technology, while the
other half are from fish that frequent more open, outshore waters such as anchoveta and
sardines. The diversity of the fish assemblage, despite its overwhelming focus on two species of
great economic importance, perhaps suggests that Pedregal residents were fishing
opportunistically rather than (or in addition to) receiving fish in exchange from specialized fishing
populations like those Gumerman identifies at Pacatnamú.
No net weights, net fragments, or other artifacts relating to fishing were recovered at
Pedregal. Pedregal fishermen could easily have traveled the eight km to the Pacific shore, but
might have stored fishing equipment near the shore rather than in the village, or this equipment
could simply not have been found during excavation. It is also possible that residents of
Pedregal, a primarily agricultural village, would not have engaged in fishing, but would rather
have obtained fish through reciprocal relationships or trade with specialized fishing populations.
Table 6.12. Selected Pedregal fish species by habitat
Species Habitat Zone

Rhinobatos planiceps marine inshore, near coast
Engraulis ringens marine open waters
Sardinops sagax sagax marine open coastal waters
Galeichthys peruvianus marine near coast
Mugil cephalus freshwater, brackish, marine open waters, bottom-dwelling
Merluccius gayi peruanus near coast to open waters
Labrisomus philippii marine near coast, bottom-dwelling
Caulolatilus cabezon marine subtidal, near rocky coast
Trachurus symmetricus
murphyi tidal to continental shelf
Paralonchurus peruanus marine, sandy coasts and bays near coast
Cynoscion analis brackish to marine near coast
Sciaena deliciosa marine near coast
168
Archaeological perspectives on marine resource procurement in later prehispanic
periods have tended to consider fishing within a system of occupational specialization that was
limited to, or at least particularly pronounced on, the north coast. Based on ethnohistoric and
linguistic evidence, including the existence of a separate ‘pescador’ language, Rostworowski
(1981:188-9) has proposed that fishing was carried out by occupational specialists, “pueblos de
pescadores separados y al márgen de las aldeas campesinas. La tarea de pescar solo
incumbía a grupos especializados 18.” Fish caught and dried by fishing specialists would have
been exchanged with nearby agricultural villages, possibly organized politically within the same
señorío. On the south coast, Sandweiss’ (1992) study of an Inka-period coastal village in the
Chincha Valley finds evidence for intensive and specialized fish procurement and processing
organized by local lords with attached artisans and craft specialists. Joyce Marcus’ (1987) work
identifies Cerro Azul in the Cañete Valley as a similarly specialized fishing population.
Gumerman’s (1991, 2002) excavations at Pacatnamú, in the Jequetepeque Valley,
suggest a different scenario for fishing specialization. Rather than living in a separate
settlement, the specialized fisherfolk at Pacatnamú lived among the rest of the commoner
population, but evidence for fish processing and storage is localized in their residences.
Gumerman suggests, based on household architecture, wealth items, and subsistence remains,
that the fishing population occupied a relatively low socioeconomic position. The high densities
of copper and beads in their residential complexes indicate, however, that they converted some
of the marine resources they obtained into wealth goods.
18
“Villages of fishermen, separate and at the margin of peasant communities. The work of fishing was
undertaken only by specialized groups.”
169
6.1.3.1 Pedregal fish use in regional perspective
Fish were an important component of faunal assemblages in lower valley urban and rural
contexts in the Jequetepeque and Moche Valleys. While Pozorski’s (1979) Moche Valley
samples are relatively small in number of species (Table 6.13), fish made up almost 30% of the
Cerro la Virgen meat diet. The suco is the largest identified contributor to the SIAR and Cerro la
Virgen fish assemblage. While Pozorski (1979) does not report anchoveta or sardines, the
bones of these small fish would have passed easily through the ¼” screen.
Table 6.13. Fish remains from two Moche Valley sites (Pozorski 1979:Table 1)

Mustelus sp. * *
Paralonchurus
peruanus 3.1 4.4
Sciena gilberti 0 1
Sciena deliciosa 0.5 7.3
Sarda chilensis 0 *
Lepisoma philippi * 0.2
Mugil cephalus 0.1 *
unidentified fish 0.4 16.2
Fish 4.1 29.1
*= less than 0.1%
At Pacatnamú, fish were one of the most common classes of faunal remains,
representing 42% of the total biomass. Fish bones were very common, and Gumerman (1991)
only analyzed a sample of 2762 bones, and calculated MNI for selected contexts based on this
sample (Table 6.14). It is thus difficult to compare the Pacatnamú fish assemblage to Pedregal’s
assemblage, except in terms of its rough outlines. As at Pedregal, the most common species
was suco (Paralonchurus peruanus). Interestingly, sardines (Sardinops sagax sagax) were also
abundant in the LIP sample from Pacatnamú, while the other common species at LIP Pedregal,
anchoveta, was absent in the sample Gumerman analyzed (1991:134). Anchoveta is a cold
170
water species whose abundance is sharply affected by ENSO events and other ocean-
temperature changes (Chávez et al 2003; Sandweiss et al. 2004). If this species’ absence in the
Pacatnamú sample truly relates to its low frequency at the site (rather than some other sampling
or identification bias) then it may indicate an ENSO event or other climatic fluctuation during the
Lambayeque occupation of Pacatnamú (A.D. 1100-1350)
Table 6.14. Fish MNI from selected samples at Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991:Table 3.8)
noble commoner
Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Osteichtheyes 11 41 0 2 0 2 2
Anidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Atherinidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Cithanrichthys 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sardinops sagax 16 3 1 0 2 2 4
Merluccius gayi 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
Kyphosidae 2 1 2 0 0 0 0
Semichossyphus darwini 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
Caulolatilus sp 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mugil cephalus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Myliobatis sp 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pleuronectidae 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Chromis sp 0 0 0 2 0 2 2
Sciaenidae 5 3 1 2 1 3 4
Paralonchurus peruanus 19 3 1 2 8 10 18
Menticirrhus sp 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Umbrina xanti 6 1 0 0 0 0 0
Sciena sp 4 0 0 3 0 3 3
Scomber sp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mycteroperca xenarcha 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
171
6.1.3.2 Changing fish use through time
During the LIP occupation of Pedregal, the fish assemblage changed from a focus on anchoveta
in the early LIP to a focus on suco in the late LIP (Figure 6.9), while the proportions represented
by the less common species in the assemblage remain relatively consistent. This change has
several implications. First, as noted above, that fish represented a smaller proportion of the
overall assemblage in the late LIP as compared to the early LIP, suggesting that the relative
importance of fishing declined in the face of increasing focus on domestic animals. However,
suco are much larger fish than anchoveta, and so one suco represents far more meat than one
anchoveta. While I did not calculate meat weights, the fact that fish elements decreased in
proportion relative to terrestrial faunal elements does not necessarily represent an actual
decline in fish consumption between the early and late LIP, since suco made up a much greater
proportion of the late LIP assemblage.
Figure 6.9. Proportions of suco and anchoveta in early and late LIP fish assemblages
172
The decline in focus on anchoveta in the late LIP assemblage may also indicate the
occurrence of an El Niño during the late LIP occupation of Pedregal. Anchoveta populations are
strongly affected, though not completely decimated, by the warm water that accompanies ENSO
events (Barber and Chavez 1986; Sandweiss et al. 2004). Thus the decrease in overall fish
elements relative to terrestrial species, and specifically the decline in anchoveta elements
relative to other fish, could reflect a decline in the availability of anchoveta due to climatic
fluctuations.
Differences between Late Moche and LIP fish assemblages at Pedregal may also relate
to multidecadal climate change. I observed a clear difference between the LIP fish assemblage
(Sector A) and the small sample of fish recovered from Sector E, the Late Moche domestic
area. Figure 6.10 compares the composition of the fish assemblage in the two sectors. In the
Late Moche assemblage, 75% of the elements identified belonged to sardines. Other important
species in the assemblage were Merluccius gayi and Rhinobatos planiceps. The Late
Intermediate Period assemblage looks drastically different. Together, suco and anchoveta
represent 82% of the assemblage in Sector A, the LIP residential area, while sardines account
for only less than 4%.
173
Figure 6.10. Comparison of Late Moche and LIP fish assemblages
The Late Moche assemblage at Pedregal is similar to Late Moche fish assemblages at
other sites along the coast. In the urban zones of Huacas de Moche, the three most abundant
species are Scianea deliciosa, Merluccius gayi, and Sardinops sagax (Vásquez and Rosales
1999:363); the latter two are the two most abundant species at Late Moche Pedregal. Late
Moche deposits at Santa Rita B in the Chao Valley follow a similar pattern (Rosales et al. 2006).
At Late Intermediate Period sites, in contrast, anchoveta and other species like suco tend to
predominate (Gumerman 1991, Vásquez et al. 1991). The long term patterning of this difference
suggests that it may correspond to a multidecadal fluctuation in Pacific Ocean temperatures
(Chavez et al. 2003; Sandweiss et al. 2004). Based on a 100 year ecological and climatic
record, Chavez et al. track large-scale changes in ocean temperature and associated shifts in
resource abundance and suggest that the Pacific cycles from a warm water “sardine regime” to
a cold water “anchovy regime” approximately every 25 years. These long term fluctuations are
174
superimposed on the more frequent ENSO disruptions and profoundly affect the ecology of the
Pacific and especially the abundance of key resources like sardines and anchoveta.
The differences between Late Moche and Late Intermediate Period fish assemblages at
Pedregal, in addition to the cases cited by Sandweiss et al. (2004) provide evidence that long
term climatic fluctuations in the Pacific have a considerable time depth. The fact that these
differences are apparent in different valleys along the coast suggests that they are the result of
macroenvironmental changes rather than more localized phenomena. They thus represent one
of the ways in which household diet was affected by environmental variables and the availability
of particular species. However, they also point to differences in the way people may have
exploited marine resources. As Figure 6.11 shows, a greater proportion of the Late Moche
assemblage is made up by offshore species (namely sardines) as opposed to the LIP
assemblage which is generally more diverse in terms of both species and habitats. While this
difference could relate to the different availability of species under different climatic regimes, it
certainly reflects a greater investment in more specialized offshore fishing by Late Moche
people than by the Late Intermediate Period population.
Figure 6.11. Fish NISP by habitat in LIP and Moche occupations of Pedregal
175
6.1.4 Shellfish
The shellfish assemblage at Pedregal is diverse, and includes numerous species of gastropods,
bivalves, and crustaceans common to coastal Peru. Shellfish were quantified by MNI, NISP, and
weight. MNI was calculated for gastropods by counting the apices of the shells, and for bivalves
by identifying right and left valves, then recording the larger number. MNI and NISP values
pattern in similar ways. Values for weight tend to underrepresent the less common species and
samples with fewer individuals; overall, the MNI is the most appropriate measure to compare.
Table 6.15 shows the different species at Pedregal by proportion of the total shellfish
assemblage and by habitat.
Three species (Donax obseulus, Polinices uber, and Prisogaster niger) made up almost
85% of the total assemblage, but 20 other species comprise the remaining 15%. Though these
species were represented by only a few individuals, their presence and ubiquity indicates that a
wide range of different species were collected and consumed by Pedregal residents. Shellfish
consumed were collected from both rocky and sandy shores and from rocky inland areas.
Sandy shore species represent 76% of the total MNI of the site. Donax obesulus, a species that
occurs in large concentrations that can be quickly and efficiently gathered by modern collectors
(Roselló et al. 2002), is the most common of these sandy shore species. Sandy shores are also
more common than rocky outcrops in the area around the mouth of the Jequetepeque River
today. If this was the case during the LIP, species that prefer these habitats would have been
easily accessible to collectors from Pedregal.
176
Table 6.15. Shellfish and crustaceans at Pedregal by proportion of total MNI
Proportion of
assemblage
Species (n=16100)
Gastropods
Polinices uber 38.87
Prisogaster niger 11.78
Thais haemastoma 3.89
Xanthochorus buxea 3.06
Nassarius dentifer 2.52
Thais chocolata 2.19
Tegula atra 0.78
Olivella columellaris 0.7
Scutalus proteus 0.41
Sinum cymba 0.2
Mitra orientalis 0.12
Fissurella maxima 0.07
Xanthochorus broderipii 0.02
Bivalves
Donax obesulus 33.61
Protothaca thaca 0.52
Choromytilus chorus 0.49
Argopecten pupuratum 0.02
Semimytilus algosus 0.02
Perúmytilus purpuratus 0.02
Semele corrugada 0.02
Aulacomya ater 0.01
Crustaceans
Platyxanthus orbignyi 0.63
Balanus sp. 0.06
Total 100%
177
The majority of individuals recovered from Pedregal contexts are gastropods (65%) such
as Prisogaster niger, Polinices uber, and Thais chocolata. Pedregal residents collected shellfish
mainly from the intertidal meso and infralittoral zones, zones close to shore but underwater
during high tide. Land snails, Scutalus proteus, were present at the site in small numbers, but
do not represent an important dietary component as they do at sites farther inland. Generally,
the shellfish assemblage seems to reflect opportunistic gathering strategies rather than the
focused exploitation of just one or two species to the exclusion of others.
6.1.4.1 Shellfish use in regional perspective
In the Moche Valley, Donax sp. is the main contributor to the shellfish diet at the SIAR and at
Cerro la Virgen (Table 6.16). A wide range of shellfish species were present at both sites, but as
at Pedregal many shellfish species represented very small proportions of the overall
assemblage. At other, earlier Moche Valley sites, shellfish assemblages were dominated by
Donax, with significant contributions from Prisogaster niger and members of the Thais genus.
Polinices was uncommon in assemblages from Huaca de la Luna (Roselló et al. 2002: 76).
Shellfish remains were much denser at Pacatnamú than at Pedregal (Table 6.17). This
may be due to Pedregal’s greater distance from the shore; it takes several hours to reach the
Pacific by foot from Pedregal, as opposed to several minutes from Pacatnamú, which would
have made expedient shellfish collecting easier at Pacatnamú. However, this difference may
also be an artifact of sampling differences (as I discussed above, I took soil samples from every
excavated context in the LIP residential area, while Gumerman (1991) took samples from
selected contexts). At both Pedregal and Pacatnamú, Polinices uber and Donax sp. (obesulus
or peruvianus) were common. Prisogaster niger was not present in the Pacatnamú assemblage,
while bivalves like Tivella and Mytilus were more frequent at Pacatnamú.
178
Table 6.16. Shellfish from two Moche Valley sites (Pozorski 1979:Table 1)

Species SIAR Cerro la Virgen
Scutalus sp. 0.1 *
Drymaleus sp. * 0
Choromytilus chorus 0.3 1
Semimytilus algosus * 1.3
Brachidontes purpuratus * 0
Pinctada mazatlanica ** 0
Argopecten purpuratum ** **
Spondylus sp. ** 0
Protothaca thaca * 0.3
Eurhomalea rufa * *
Petricola rugosa ** 0
Mesodesma donacium * 0
Donax peruvianus 10.4 25
Semele corrugata 0.6 2.4
Phola chiloensis 0 *
Fissurella sp. * 0.1
Tegula atra * 0.1
Turbo niger 0.2 0.4
Strombus peruvianus ** 0
Crepidula dilatata * *
Polinices sp. * 0
Sinum cymba 0 *
Thais chocolata 0.1 0.1
Thais delessertiana 0.1 0.4
Cantharus sp. * 0
Nassarius gayi ** **
Olivella columellaris ** **
Mitra orientalis * 0
Concholepas concholepas * 0
Chiton * 0
unidentified shell * *
Platyanthus orbignii 0.5 3.5
Balanus tintinnabulum ** **
Molluscs and
Crustaceans 12.3 34.6
*= less than 0.1%
179
Table 6.17. Average frequency (MNI per liter) of shellfish at Pacatnamú (Gumerman
1991:Table 3.7)
noble commoner
species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pedregal
Gastropod
Fissurella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.33 * 0.06 0.006
Nassarius sp 0.16 0.11 0.2 0.17 0.33 0.19 0.28 0.022
Olivella sp. 0.16 0.28 0.08 0.1 0.11 0.17 0.16 0.019
Polinices sp. 0.95 0.21 0.39 0.4 0.24 1.59 0.76 0.351
Scaphella sp. * 0.08 0 0 0 0.11 0 0
Scutalus sp. 0 0 0 0 0.42 0 0.09 0.019
Sinum cymba * * 0 0 * 0 0 0.003
Tegula 0.38 0.28 0.43 0.15 0.22 0.61 0.72 0.031
Thais biserialis 0.09 * 0.12 0 0.17 0.14 0.07 0
Thais chocolata 0.08 0 0 0 * 0 0 0.031
Thais delessertiana 0.22 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.37 0.2 0
Freshwater snail * 0.18 0 0 0.33 0 0 0
Unknown 0.39 0.72 0.25 0 0.11 0.4 0.23 0
Bivalve
Chione sp. 0.03 0 0 0 0 * 0 0
Donax sp. 0.19 0.25 0.2 0.06 0.87 0.36 0.25 0.557
Mytilus sp. 0.07 0.12 0.1 0.77 0.6 0.1 0.32 0
Pecten sp. * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Protothaca 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.018
Semele 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Solennosteira
fusiformis 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.08 0
Tivella sp 0 0 0 0.17 2.5 2.65 0.1 0
Unknown 0.11 0.08 0 0 0.33 0 0.06 0
Crustacean
Balanus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.5 0.001
*=present but no features for counting MNI
180
In the Casma Valley (Koschmieder 2004:342), Donax obesulus was the most common
species in the Chimú and Chimú-Casma occupations, while Perumytilus purpuratus was most
common in the local Casma residents of the site and continued to be popular in the Chimú-
Casma occupation. Prisogaster niger, Polinices uber, and Thais chocolata were uncommon in
all these Casma Valley assemblages. This wide variation in shellfish assemblages is likely
related to differences in habitat and environment among these three valleys, as well as climatic
variations through time.
6.1.4.2 Changing shellfish use through time
The composition of the shellfish assemblage at Pedregal changed markedly over time.
Specifically, there was a shift in preference from Polinices uber, which is present in significantly
greater densities and makes up a greater proportion of the assemblage during the earlier
occupation, to Donax obesulus, present in greater densities and higher proportions during the
later occupation. The same trend is observed in each household unit. Table 6.18 shows
changes in mean density for the two species, while the bullet graphs in Figure 6.12 illustrate the
proportions of the Sector A assemblage made up by Polinices uber and Donax obesulus in the
early and late LIP occupations.
Table 6.18. Comparison of Donax and Polinices densities in early and late LIP
Species Mean MNI/L t-test on difference

early LIP late LIP
Polineces uber 0.52 0.18 t=3.99, p=0.0001
Donax obesulus 0.43 0.69 t=2.03, p=.04
181
Figure 6.12. Proportions of Donax and Polinices in early and late LIP shellfish
assemblages
While Donax replaced Polinices as the focus of the assemblage in the later LIP
occupation, the rest of the assemblage did not vary greatly. The third most common species,
Prisogaster niger, makes up about the same proportion of both assemblages. The proportion of
the assemblage made up by rare species remains close to 15% in the early and late moments,
and diversity (as calculated with Simpson’s diversity index, which measures diversity on a scale
from 0 [least diverse] to 1 [most diverse]) does not vary greatly between occupations. For Sector
A as a whole, Simpson’s diversity index is 0.89 in the earlier occupation and 0.84 in the later
one. By calculating diversity indices for just the assemblage of rare species, it is possible to
avoid the overwhelming influence of one of two species and look for changes in the less well-
represented species. The diversity indices thus calculated are 0.94 for the earlier deposits and
182
0.91 for the later levels. The shellfish assemblage is extremely diverse, but diversity does not
decrease appreciably over time.
Though a greater emphasis is seen on Donax during the late LIP occupation, this
emphasis does not reflect a homogenization of the assemblage, or a focus on just one easily
collected species, but rather a shift in focus from Polinices to Donax while the heterogeneity of
the assemblage was maintained. This shift may relate to the changing availability of Donax or
Polinices as the climate fluctuated. Modern data shows that Donax populations decline during
ENSO events, while Polinices, on the other hand, survive El Niño events and, since they are
predatory gastropods, may even benefit from ENSO-related shellfish die-offs (Moreno et al.
2007; Riascos 2006; Tarazona et al. 2008).
However, no clear pattern of climatic fluctuations emerges when fish and shellfish data
are considered together. The dominance of Polineces in the early LIP and the relative lack of
Donax could indicate than an ENSO event occurred in the early LIP. However, the relative lack
of anchoveta as compared to suco in the late LIP would tend to suggest the opposite. It may be
that several El Niños are represented in the fish and shellfish assemblage, but that temporal
resolution remains too coarse to sort them out. Alternately, it could be that these shifts are due
to changes in how Pedregal residents procured marine resources.
6.2 CLOTHING THE FAMILY
Textile production was a common activity in Pedregal households. In addition to supplying
household needs, spinning, weaving, and sewing activities may also at some points have been
directed toward tribute production. I will discuss the organization of household textile production
183
(spinning, weaving, and sewing) at Pedregal in the next chapter; here I discuss how households
acquired raw materials for textile production. On the prehispanic coast, textiles were most often
made of cotton. Cotton was one of the first cultigens to appear on the coast, used in nets and
textiles during the preceramic period. By the LIP, cotton was widely cultivated. Camelid wool
was also sometimes employed in textiles recovered from coastal sites, but was more commonly
used in the highlands. At Pedregal, preliminary observations made it clear that cotton was by far
the more common fiber as compared to wool, though formal analysis of textile fragments is not
complete. The botanical assemblage contains abundant cotton remains; Gossypium
barbadense makes up 11% of the total plant assemblage, and was present in 40% of the
contexts with botanical remains (Table 6.1). Cotton fiber, seeds, and pods are all common in
domestic refuse at Pedregal, which indicates that cotton was grown in nearby fields and brought
to Pedregal for processing rather than arriving at the site already processed.
Cotton naturally grows in gradations of color from dark brown to white. Both brown and
white cotton fibers were present at Pedregal, and finished textiles incorporated both colors.
Dyes would have been necessary to produce the other colors present in the textiles recovered
from Pedregal and other coastal sites. Añil, a wild indigo (Indigofera suffruticosa) was likely
used for the blue color common on north coast textiles, for example, while algarrobo was one of
the ethnohistorically reported sources of brown dye on the north coast (Ravines 1978: 267).
Besides algarrobo, none of the dye plants mentioned by Ravines are part of the botanical
sample from Pedregal. Mordants used to fix the dye include readily available substances like
urine and ash. Pedregal residents would thus have been able to easily procure everything
necessary to produce textiles for household use and for tribute within a short radius from the
village.
184
6.3 PROCURING FUEL, FODDER, AND FERTILIZER
Obtaining fuel, fodder, and fertilizer would have been related activities for members of Pedregal
households. Algarrobo (Prosopis pallida) trees would have provided an important source of all
three. The prehispanic extent of algarrobo thickets (algarrobales) in the Jequetepeque is not
known, but they were likely much more common than they are today. Changes in the water
table associated with rice irrigation, population growth, and an overall drying trend have
contributed to deforestation over the last century. As I mentioned above, several important LIP
sites, El Algarrobal de Moro and Tecapa (Mackey 2004, Warner et al. 2005) are located in
remnant algarrobales, suggesting the importance of this kind of environment to past
populations.
Soil analyses performed by Nordt et al. (2004) in the Lambayeque Valley suggest that
the prehispanically-farmed Pampa de Chaparrí would have required periodic nitrogen inputs to
remain fertile. Nitrogen could have been added to fields by rotating nitrogen-fixing legumes
(beans) with other crops, by adding bird guano or camelid dung, or by allowing leguminous
algarrobo trees to grow around fields and adding algarrobo leaf litter to fields (Nordt et al. 2004:
36). All of these methods have been recorded ethnographically or historically, and it is likely that
they were practiced individually or in combination by farmers at Pedregal, since soils on the
Pampa de Faclo would likely have required similar treatment.
Algarrobo trees, along with crop byproducts like maize stalks, would have provided
fodder for camelids. Abundant algarrobo remains, maize stalks, and other botanical material
were often found in context with deposits of camelid dung at Pedregal. The dung in turn could
have been used as fertilizer or as fuel. Today, people on the north coast grow or buy alfalfa to
185
feed household guinea pigs. In the past, plants would also have been brought into the house to
feed cuy, while dogs could have subsisted on table scraps and other byproducts.
Sources of fuel on the coast would have included trees and woody plants like algarrobo,
zapote (Capparis angulata), maize stalks and cobs, and camelid dung. Though no systematic
study of fuel types was carried out at Pedregal, the majority of charred plant remains were
wood, maize stalks, or woody plants like Gynerium saggitatum. Burnt camelid and guinea pig
coprolites were recovered, but less often from hearth contexts. The majority of burned coprolites
were only partially burned, perhaps during postdepositional episodes of trash burning. It seems
likely that wood (zapote or algarrobo) and cane were preferred fuel types, as they are in
traditional households in the middle Jequetepeque Valley today. Food is said by residents today
to have a better taste when cooked over wood (leña) than over gas. Cleland and Shimada
(1998:144) also observe that zapote is the preferred fuel for firing locally produced vessels in
Mórrope, in the Lambayeque Valley, though dung and straw are also used in the Jequetepeque.
6.4 OBTAINING POTTERY AND OTHER TOOLS
Ceramic vessels for preparing and serving food and chicha, carrying water, and storing goods
would have constituted a large portion of a Pedregal family’s possessions. In Chapter 7, I
discuss Pedregal’s ceramic assemblage and its role in domestic culinary practice in greater
detail. Here I am concerned with how Pedregal residents would have supplied their households
with ceramics and other tools such as copper and lithic implements.
Lithic tools were likely to have been manufactured in the village. No tools or debitage of
high-quality, exotic material such as obsidian were recovered during excavation; instead, tools
186
were manufactured from locally available gabbro and quartzite cobbles. Most tools recovered
were unretouched flakes or unmodified cobbles used to grind or chop (Table 6.19). No lithic
workshops and little debitage were identified during excavation and therefore lithic production
was likely expedient and took place outside of workshops or other specialized contexts. Lithic
agricultural implements like clodbreakers 19 (in Quechua, wini or huarmic pananan) would have
required more skill to produce, as it was necessary not only to smooth the sides of a large
cobble but also to drill through its center in order to haft the tool. Excavations recovered several
broken, partially completed tools (Figure 6.13), suggesting that they were manufactured at
Pedregal for use by local farmers.
Table 6.19. Lithics at Pedregal
Number Sector Unit Weight (g.) Type Material

20 A 1 350 groundstone tool local
20 A 1 131 porra in production local
278 A 2 121 core tool local
314 A surface 566 porra local
405 A surface 497 porra in production local
1107 B PP13 32 flake tool local
2046 A surface 1245 porra in production local
2339 A PP30 6 shatter local
2339 A PP30 6 flake local
2356 A PP30 2 shatter local
2356 A PP30 127 groundstone tool local
2400 A PP31 99 groundstone tool local
2776 A surface 257 groundstone tool local
2776 A surface 285 groundstone tool local
19
Other researchers have regarded these “donut stones” as mace heads (porras), but as Eling (1987)
points out, donut stones are usually found in association with fields and display usewear consistent with
heavy use, and thus are best interpreted as agricultural implements.
187
Figure 6.13. ‘Donut stones’ from Pedregal in production (below) and with usewear traces
(above) showing relation to clodbreaker (wini) (redrawn from Rivero Lluque 2005)
Unlike lithic tools, metal tools required specialist production. Much has been written
about arsenic copper smelting and working on the north coast (Lechtman 1991; Shimada et al.
1982). This activity usually took place in specialized workshop settings, and it is likely that
Pedregal residents would have obtained copper implements like needles and tweezers from
these specialists, or via redistribution or exchange networks, rather than by producing them
directly.
Studies of ceramic production on the north coast have tended to focus on elite fineware
or standardized state wares, produced in attached or independent workshop contexts. The
utilitarian ceramics that predominate at Pedregal were likely produced on a more local level. I
found no evidence for ceramic production at the site. No wasters or kilns were found in
excavated units at Pedregal, nor were any wasters recovered during surface collection. One
188
mold fragment was found in a surface collection of the Sector B cemetery. It is unlikely that each
household would have produced its own ceramics, but there are several possible (and not
necessarily mutually exclusive) ways in which ceramic production could have been organized.
Gillin (1947:43) reports that Moche households in the 1940s tended to have between
five and ten ceramic ollas. In Hagstrum’s (1989) research in the Mantaro Valley, Peru,
household size averaged 5.7 people and households had on average five to six cooking vessels
(ollas for cooking soups and stews, and chatas for cooking rice). Hagstrum (1989) found that
except for the largest cooking vessels, vessel use-life was approximately two years. Vessels for
liquid storage and fermentation were less numerous (0.3 and 0.5 per household respectively)
but lasted 5-20 years. Hayashida (2008), however, reports that during modern chicha
production in the Lambayeque Valley, cooking jars only average two weeks to one month of
use. Based on these ethnographic cases, extended-family households at Pedregal would have
had to replace a minimum of several cooking vessels each year and obtain larger storage and
fermentation vessels as needed.
Abundant ethnohistoric and ethnographic evidence from the Andes points to the
existence of villages specialized in ceramic production (Arnold 1993, Rostworowski 1975,
Shimada 1994). Shimada (1994, Cleland and Shimada 1998) describes production by part-time
specialists in the modern village of Mórrope, in the Lambayeque Valley. Most residents of
Mórrope produce paddle-and-anvil (paleteada) ceramics in their homes at least part time.
Today, potters in villages like Mórrope sell their wares from home and in nearby cities, but in the
prehispanic north coast system of occupational specialization these ceramics would have been
exchanged for the products of nearby agricultural or fishing specialists.
Mórrope potters use paleteada technology, which first appeared in the archaeological
record during the Middle Sicán period. In this technique, ceramic vessels are shaped using a flat
189
wooden paddle against a small handheld anvil (usually a smooth pebble) held inside the vessel,
and finished by stamping a geometric or figurative design onto the vessel shoulder with a
decorated paddle. Cleland and Shimada (1998) suggest that this technique was introduced by
an ethnic group that arrived from Piura in the Middle Sicán period and spread south as far as
Chicama. As producers of necessary goods, members of this group would have been integrated
economically into Sicán society, but would have maintained a distinct sub-cultural or ethnic
identity (1998:140) and production and distribution of paleteada pottery would have remained
independent from state-run workshops. Paleteada ceramics were common at Pedregal, and a
relatively wide range of paleteada designs compared to other contemporaneous sites in the
Jequetepeque and Chicama Valleys 20 (see Appendix E).
Evidence for ceramic production at Farfán during Lambayeque and Chimú-Inka periods
(Mackey and Jáuregui 2002, 2004) suggests that some of the utilitarian ceramics used at
Pedregal may have been produced in elite-supervised workshops. One of the components of
the Lambayeque occupation of Farfán was a ceramic workshop (Mackey in press, Mackey and
Jaúregui 2002). This workshop produced ring-base bowls with a molded decorative band; such
vessels were found in the associated Lambayeque cemetery and fragments of similar vessels
were among the ceramic sample at Pedregal. These vessels were not destined for elite use, as
they were included in middle-class burials (Mackey in press), but they were produced in a
workshop context at an administrative site, which suggests more formal organization of
production than that of paleteada vessels described above. It is possible that Pedregal residents
obtained some of their bowls and ollas from this workshop during the Lambayeque period.
20
Paleteada ceramics in the Jequetepeque and south tend to have either square or linear patterns, as
opposed to a wider range of motifs common in the Lambayeque-La Leche region (Cleland and Shimada
1998; Franco and Gálvez 2004).
190
A Chimú-Inka ceramic production context was also identified near an elite residence at
Farfán (Mackey 2003). Large storage vessels (tinajas) were made in this workshop. While two
tinaja fragments from Pedregal were decorated with a row of incised circles near the rim, similar
to tinajas produced at Farfán, it is unclear whether Farfán was an important source of these
ceramics. It would be difficult to transport these large (rim diameters of the tinajas produced at
Farfán reach 50 cm), low-fired vessels very far, and occupation at Pedregal had declined or
ended by the Chimú-Inka period. The evidence that Pedregal received ceramics produced at
Farfán during the Lambayeque period is somewhat stronger, however, and it is possible that
Farfán continued as a source of Pedregal utilitarian ceramics during later periods.
I have observed manufacture of utilitarian ceramics by itinerant specialists in the
Jequetepeque Valley. Potters from the village of San Pablo, in the upper Jequetepeque Valley,
visit villages in the middle after the harvest at least once a year (though residents remember
that before metal cooking pots had widely replaced ceramic ones, potters visited twice a year). I
observed two potters during their visit to the town of Pay Pay in July 2007. The potters brought
dried clay from the upper valley and spent a week making and firing 195 ollas, tinajas, and jars
using the paleteada technique (Figure 6.14). The vessels were constructed and dried in a room
otherwise used for storage, and open-air fired nearby. Dung and straw were used as fuel for this
relatively low-temperature firing, and little trace of the firing was left afterward. After firing, the
potters exchanged finished vessels for recently harvested rice.
Ceramic production of this nature would have left few archaeological indications; no
dedicated workshop space exists in Pay Pay, the potters carried their tools with them, firing left
only ephemeral traces, and all the vessels survived firing, so no wasters were produced. This
scenario provides an alternate (and less archaeologically visible) model for domestic ceramic
production, but in both this case and the case of village specialization described above utilitarian
191
Figure 6.14. Paleteada production, July 2007, Pay Pay, Jequetepeque Valley, Peru.
ceramics are made by part-time or full-time independent specialists organized at the local rural
level.
As yet, we can say little about how Pedregal residents obtained domestic ceramics.
Ethnographic analogy and evidence from nearby Farfán, however, suggest that households
used ceramics made by independent specialists as well as at least some vessels produced in
attached workshops at other sites. And while lithic tools and other necessary implements would
have been produced at the household level, metal objects would likely have come from
specialized workshops located elsewhere.
192
6.5 CONCLUSIONS: PROVISIONING THE HOUSEHOLD
Most resources used in Pedregal households could be obtained within a relatively limited 10 km
catchment area, no more than several hours’ walk from the village, with the exception of metal
tools, ceramics, and some non-local plants. Excavations uncovered no evidence that Pedregal
households were economically specialized or that they were not self-sufficient in acquiring food,
clothing, and fuel. Maize was a staple throughout the LIP, accompanied by other cultigens and
wild plants. However, in the late LIP, maize increased in importance at the expense of wild
plants and tree fruits. A similar shift toward domesticates occurred in the faunal assemblage, as
fish declined in importance relative to camelids. Increased maize production and processing in
Pedregal households is consistent with Dillehay and Kolata’s (2004) hypotheses of increased
investment in intensive irrigation farming and hypotheses of surplus mobilization of maize by the
Chimú polity.
The fish and shellfish assemblages also changed over the course of the LIP, with Donax
replacing Polinices as the most important shellfish species, while suco replaced anchoveta as
the largest contributor to the fish assemblage. Comparison to Late Moche samples from the site
shows a clear shift from a sardine-based assemblage during the Moche period to an anchoveta
and suco dominated assemblage during the LIP, a change consistent with the kind of
multidecadal climatic cycle proposed by Chavez et al. (2003).
Comparison to assemblages from nearby Pacatnamú and Chimú sites in the Moche and
Casma Valleys shows that Pedregal plant and animal use follows the same general patterns as
other lower class LIP sites. Fleshy fruits like guanábana made an important contribution to plant
assemblages at LIP sites, while maize was relatively constant between rural and urban and
upper and lower class assemblages. Camelid was the most common terrestrial animal in the
193
LIP faunal assemblages from Pedregal, Pacatnamú, Chan Chan, and Cerro la Virgen. At
Pacatnamú, camelid made a greater contribution on average than fish in upper class room
groups, while the reverse was true for lower class households. In the Moche Valley, the
contributions of fish and shellfish to the meat diet were negligible in comparison to the
contribution of camelid in the urban, lower class SIAR, while at the rural lower class village of
Cerro la Virgen fish and shellfish made up a greater proportion of the diet. Fish and shellfish
assemblages in the Moche and Jequetepeque Valleys show more variation than do plant or
terrestrial faunal assemblages in terms of species represented, which may be due to greater
geographic variation in the marine habitats available and climatic fluctuations through time. In
general, Pedregal’s faunal assemblage follows the outlines of Cerro la Virgen and the
commoner households of Pacatnamú more closely than the urban SIAR or noble households at
Pacatnamú.
194
7.0 HOUSEHOLD WORK AT PEDREGAL
The rhythms of domestic life, what Ortner refers to as the “little routines people enact, again and
again, in working, sleeping, and relaxing, as well as little scenarios of etiquette they play out
again and again in social interaction” (Ortner 1984:154) constitute daily household practice.
Many of these little routines are tasks related to preparing food, raising children, cleaning and
maintaining the house, and making clothes, tools, nets, and other necessities. In this chapter, I
focus on three elements of daily domestic practice particularly visible in Pedregal households:
food processing, food preparation, and spinning and weaving, and discuss the gendered
organization of these tasks at the household level and the evidence for changes in the focus
and intensity of household work through time.
7.1 FOOD PROCESSING
After food was brought back to the village, most foods underwent at least minimal processing
before they are cooked and served. In contrast, preparation refers to culinary operations such
as cooking that directly preceded the consumption of a meal. Food processing, on the other
hand, often occurred well in advance of a meal and serves to separate the edible portion of the
plant or animal from byproducts like bones or husks (even though these byproducts may
195
subsequently be used for other purposes) and includes activities like butchering and drying
meat and fish, shucking and grinding corn, and hulling beans. While there was clearly overlap
between these activities in practice, especially as cooks multitasked in the kitchen, I separate
them here in order to explore the organization and timing of different tasks in the kitchen.
A good deal of daily household work is devoted to processing food for subsequent meal
preparation and also to store for future use. In rural agrarian households, processing work
generally increases around the harvest season 21. Processing often takes place outside the
house in modern rural Jequetepeque households; it is common to see external spaces used for
grinding corn or drying crops like corn or chili peppers. Processing also takes place on a smaller
scale within houses, often immediately related to cooking. Figure 7.1, for example, shows a
small grinding stone inside a contemporary kitchen in the middle Jequetepeque.
Figure 7.1. Grinding stone and hearth in a middle Jequetepeque Valley house
21
I discuss the seasonality of household practice at Pedregal in Chapter 9.
196
7.1.1 Plant processing at Pedregal
A series of carefully timed tasks moves plants from the field to the kitchen. Crops are harvested,
often dried and partly processed in the field, and then transported back home for storage,
further processing, and eventual household use. Harvests in the Andes are traditionally
communal tasks, times when old reciprocal obligations are met and new ones incurred. Work
must be completed quickly when the plants have reached the desired stage of maturity, and, at
least today, crops are particularly vulnerable to damage and theft during the harvest season.
After crops like maize and beans are harvested, the plants must be further processed to
separate the edible products from byproducts such as stalks and leaves to be used as fuel or
fodder or discarded.
The presence of complete cornstalks, including roots, attached husks (with ears
removed), and tassels in platform and other fill at Pedregal suggest that Pedregal residents first
cut down cornstalks or pulled them up by their roots, and then removed the ears of corn while
leaving husks attached to the stalk. Stalks were used in platform construction, and likely also as
fodder and fuel. This harvest sequence matches up well with modern observations of the maize
harvest.
In Sikkink’s (1988) harvest sequence for maize in the highlands, primary processing, in
which stalks and husks are separated from cobs, takes place in the fields, but stalks are brought
back to the house as animal fodder. Cobs are dried and stored in houses until used, and then
maize kernels are removed from the cob before being ground. My own observations of the corn
harvest in November 2006 in the middle Jequetepeque Valley, and Gillin’s (1947:20) description
of the maize harvest in the village of Moche, are of a similar harvest sequence. Some corn is
harvested green, and the rest is left to ripen and dry on the stalk. The stalks are cut down or
197
pulled out and left in the field until husking. Gillin describes a “bone or wooden pick, 5 to 6
inches long, perforated at the butt end and attached to the wrist by a thong…[which] is used as
an aid in opening stalks” (20), whereas in 2006 farmers used metal picks. The harvester picks
up each stalk, slits open the husks and removes the ears (Figure 7.2). After husking, ears are
piled together to be bagged and transported, while husks and stalks are left on the ground to be
burnt, gathered for fodder, or used as construction materials. The husked ears are carried back
to the house for further drying, after which kernels can be removed from the cobs.
Figure 7.2. Maize harvester in the middle Jequetepeque Valley
Other non-edible plant parts were also common in the Pedregal assemblage. Numerous
empty bean pods, but few whole bean plants, were recovered, suggesting that pods were
removed from the plant elsewhere and brought back to the village for the final step of
processing, or that bean plants (but not pods) were burnt as fuel or used as fodder. Gillin (1947)
198
mentions that in Moche, beans and lentils were harvested by pulling the whole plant up and
then pounding the plants over mats or baskets to remove the seeds. The presence of cotton
pods along with fiber and seeds at Pedregal indicates that cotton processing also took place in
and around households (Figure 7.3). Many seeds were still embedded in fiber, hinting at the
laborious work of picking numerous small cotton seeds out of cotton fiber before it could be
spun. This evidence suggests that a good deal of primary plant processing took place around
Pedregal houses, rather than in the fields.
Figure 7.3. Cotton seeds, pods, and fiber from Pedregal
Other crops, especially fruits, do not require long or time-consuming processing
sequences. Today, fruits like pacae or plums are generally not eaten as part of a meal, but
rather picked opportunistically and consumed when desired. It is common to see discarded
pacae pods and seeds along paths, in yards, and along the side of the road during pacae
season. Likewise, guanábana is processed and the seeds removed only in order to blend the
199
fruit with water to make a refresco. For plants such as ají and fruits, byproducts such as skin,
seeds, and stems were present in the Pedregal botanical assemblage; these byproducts were
likely not produced as part of processing and storage sequences, but rather were likely removed
at the moment of preparation and consumption.
Figure 7.4. Potato harvest in Guzmango, Cajamarca (Photo by Howard Tsai)
In the Andes, many harvest and crop-processing tasks are shared by men and women
(Figure 7.4). However, though Sikkink (2001:111) points out that the organization of labor in
Andean households is flexible, men tend to be more involved in plowing and heavy work, while
women tend to process harvested crops, winnowing and grinding grain and drying crops like ají
peppers. Plant processing activities like winnowing and grinding are initial stages of cooking and
therefore tend to be carried out by women. Weismantel (1988) elegantly describes the morning
200
ritual in highland Ecuadorian households: “Soon all the other women were up, the young ones,
kachun [daughter-in-law] and daughter, grinding barley and the old woman presiding over the
fire, toasting barley on a flat griddle” (175). The laborious daily work of grinding grains on large
kitchen grinding stones is shared by the younger women in the household. On the basis of
accounts like this, Hastorf (1991) argues that maize grinding would have been primarily a
female task in the prehispanic Mantaro Valley. In this way, the distribution and concentration of
maize remains and processing tools might be used to chart women’s activities in Wanka
households, and to infer changes in the intensity of these activities after Inka conquest.
7.1.1.1 Groundstone processing tools at Pedregal
Groundstone tools such as batanes (large, flat base stones) and manos or chungos (smaller
hand or rocker stones) are generally used to process maize in the Andes, while smaller stones
are used as mortars and pestles to grind condiments like ají peppers. Large batanes are often
located inside kitchens and are sometimes set into benches or floors. Batanes can also be
placed outside houses (as shown in Bruning’s 1886 photos from the Lambayeque region [Figure
7.5]).
201
Figure 7.5. Large batán (Photo by Bruning, in Schaedel 1988)
Large batanes were rare at Pedregal. Only one probable batán was observed on the
surface, in Area 4 near Unit 3. Large manos were also rare. Unfortunately, therefore, at
Pedregal large grinding stones do not provide evidence for the spatial organization of maize
processing or for changes in processing intensity through time. Maize was clearly being
processed at Pedregal, however, and I suggest that the relative lack of batanes is due to the
fact that large stones suitable for use as grinding stones were rare in the lower valley, and
would thus have been curated. Pedregal has been looted extensively, and it is possible that
even batanes abandoned at the site could have been removed for use in other, even modern,
settlements. While archaeologists often assume that large grinding slabs were relatively
immobile, and thus their locations in archaeological contexts presumably represent their location
of use (Gero and Scattolin 2002; Hendon 1997; Sweely 1998), this may be true only of grinding
stones embedded in floors or benches. Modern residents of a small hamlet in the middle
Jequetepeque Valley move their large batán to different locations in their yard depending on the
tasks they are working on at the time (Howard Tsai, 2006, personal communication). It is clear,
202
then, that batanes can be moved at will, and a good batán is probably reused until it wears
through, especially in the lower valley where suitable large slabs of stone are relatively rare.
Smaller unmodified grinding stones were more commonly recovered at Pedregal (see
Table 6.19). These ranged between 30-40 cm in diameter, with at least one face showing
evidence of pecking. On these smaller stones, the pecked and polished surface was usually a
narrow tip (Figure 7.6), which indicates that these stones were used as pestles. It is likely that
these are underrepresented in the sample; wear on recovered groundstone tools was
sometimes fairly light, the stones were not otherwise modified and similarly sized smooth round
stones were abundant at the site. Such small manos were found across Sector A, but as few
were recovered, most from surface or near-surface contexts (see Table 6.19), their distribution
does not help clarify the organization of household processing tasks.
Figure 7.6. Small grinding stone from Pedregal
203
7.1.1.2 Plant products and processing byproducts at Pedregal
Hastorf (1990:282, see also Lennstrom and Hastorf 1988) suggests that maize and other plant
remains recovered from patio and general house contexts are more indicative of processing
than consumption. In order to reconstruct emphasis on particular crop processing activities in
Pedregal households, I focus on macrobotanical remains of maize and cotton, plants that would
have required particularly intensive processing. Three different measures—proportion, ubiquity,
and density (parts/L excavated)—can be used to detect changes in emphasis.
Table 7.1 summarizes proportions, mean densities, and ubiquities of maize, cotton, and
tree fruits. Maize made up a greater proportion of the botanical assemblage in the later LIP
contexts than in the earlier ones. This was true for all three households sampled in depth,
suggesting that this was a settlement-wide trend. The proportion of the assemblage made up by
maize almost doubled, from 14% in the early LIP to 26% in the late LIP. The average number of
maize cob and kernel parts per liter in soil samples was also higher in late LIP contexts, though
not significantly so. In addition to being present in greater densities and making up a greater
proportion of the assemblage, maize was also more ubiquitous in the later LIP. It was present in
a greater proportion of contexts, suggesting it was being processed not only more intensely, but
over a wider area of the site. Cotton also made up a significantly greater proportion of the
botanical assemblage in later occupations at the site. On average, cotton densities were higher
in the later LIP, though we can only be 85% confident that this difference is real and not an
artifact of sampling. However, cotton was slightly more ubiquitous in the early LIP than the late
LIP. In the late LIP, maize and cotton together made up 54% of the plant assemblage,
compared to 33% in the early LIP.
204
Table 7.1. Selected plants species in early and late LIP occupations at Pedregal
Total Mean
LIP plant density
occupation parts (frags/L) t-test Proportion chi-square Ubiquity
maize (cobs early 5780 0.38 t=.747, 14.76 Χ²=142, 38.85
and kernels) late 2093 0.54 p=.456 26.42 p<.0005 64.62
early 5780 1.46 t=1.52, 18.25 Χ²=85.17, 53.24
cotton
late 2093 2.82 p=.13 27.81 p<.0005 46.15
guanabana/t early 5780 0.77 t=3.209, 33.75 Χ²=147.88, 59.71
ree fruit late 2093 0.23 p=.002 19.54 p<.0005 66.15
As cotton and maize became a more important part of the assemblage through time,
tree fruits and especially guanábana (Annona muricata) received less emphasis. Tree fruits as a
category made up a significantly greater proportion of the botanical assemblage in the early LIP
deposits. The mean density of guanábana from soil samples in early contexts was significantly
higher than in late contexts. However, guanábana ubiquity is greater in the late LIP, which
suggests that although guanábana was a more important part of the botanical assemblage
during the earlier LIP, its distribution within households and middens was more localized than in
the later LIP.
The shift from an assemblage that focused more heavily on tree fruits, along with beans
and wild plants, to an assemblage in which use of tree fruits dropped significantly but use of
cotton and maize increased signals a change in domestic subsistence and household labor
priorities. Tree fruits like guanábana are more difficult to store and transport than plants like
maize and cotton, but require minimal processing. Rinds and seeds are removed shortly before
consumption, and no further preparation is necessary. On the other hand, maize and cotton can
be stored and transported, and can also be transformed into products with added political and
symbolic value, like chicha or textiles. These products would be more appropriate trade or
tribute items in a valley-wide system than tree fruits or wild plants. The increased focus on
205
processing cotton and maize in Pedregal households points to household economic emphases
that are consistent with increased agricultural production for household consumption and for
trade or tribute.
As emphasis on maize and cotton increased, the time invested in crop processing by
Pedregal residents, and especially women, would likely have increased. Maize and cotton
require a good deal of processing labor before the final product can be used. Seeds must be
painstakingly picked from cotton fiber and maize must be removed from the cob and ground to
make chicha or other preparations. The increased contribution of these species to the
assemblage in the later LIP suggests that Pedregal residents would have spent comparatively
more time processing plants in the later LIP. The proportion of the botanical assemblage
represented by maize cobs and kernels almost doubled from the early to the late LIP, a
noteworthy increase requiring a major redeployment of household labor. Because these tasks
tend to be carried out by women and girls in the Andes, women at Pedregal would have borne
the brunt of this increased workload.
7.1.1.3 Pedregal maize processing in regional perspective
From the early to the late LIP, then, Pedregal households increased production of cotton and
maize, plants that required heavy processing but could be easily stored, transported, and
converted to desirable products like chicha and textiles. Increased production could indicate a
shift in consumption patterns toward a more maize-based diet, as a result of changes in
agricultural practices or household economic strategies. Increased production could also signal
an increase in export of maize and cotton as exchange or tribute, as a result of the new
demands placed on Pedregal households by the Chimú state.
206
One way to evaluate the movement of maize as an item of exchange or of extracted
tribute is by looking at ratios of cobs to kernels (Gumerman 1991; Hastorf 2001; Plescia 2003;
Welch and Scarry 1995). In the case of the Mississippian chiefdom centered at Moundville,
Welch and Scarry (1995) found that rural villages near Moundville had much higher ratios of
maize cob fragments to kernels than Moundville itself; that is, rural villages had proportionally
more processing byproducts (cobs) as compared to the part of the plant that was consumed
(kernels) than did the center of Moundville 22. Welch and Scarry (1995) interpret this pattern as
indicating that maize was being produced and processed in rural villages, and then supplied to
the center as tribute. Moundville received maize kernels, but not byproducts like cobs, from its
rural sustaining villages.
In the Mantaro Valley, Hastorf (2001) found a similar regional pattern in cob to kernel
ratios. At Wanka II-period Hatunmarca, a low elevation site near maize production areas, total
maize density was 3.3/6 kg soil sample, and cob density was 2.7/sample (a ratio of .82
cobs/total maize remains) (Hastorf 2001:Table 7.2 23). Hastorf interprets this high cob density
and presence relative to total maize density and presence, as evidence for the production and
harvest of maize by residents of the site. On the other hand, at Wanka II Tunanmarca, a site far
from maize-producing areas that, according to Hastorf, “probably depended on trade or tribute
only” (169), the overall density of maize was 1.5/6 kg soil sample, while cob density was only
.33/sample (a ratio of .22 cobs/maize remains). Hastorf interprets these results as indicating that
22
Welch and Scarry (1995) express cupule and kernel data using box plots that show the natural log of
standardized count +1 (to deal with a skewed dataset). However, by adding the standardized densities of
each flotation sample for two sites (Moundville NR and Big Sandy) reported in Welch and Scarry
(1995:Table 2) and averaging them to find the mean count/total plant g., and then dividing cupules by
kernels, I calculated cupule-to-kernel ratios of .93 cupules/kernel for Moundville NR and 1.71
cupules/kernel for Big Sandy (a farmstead).
23
It is not clear whether Hastorf’s ‘maize’ category includes cobs and kernels, only kernels, or cobs,
kernels, and other maize parts. For this reason, I could not calculate cob-to-kernel ratios from Hastorf’s
(2001:Table 7.2 and 7.3) data.
207
“shucked maize was transported and that Tunanmarca residents did not do much of their own
maize production” (Hastorf 2001:169). Hastorf (2001) does not discuss an example of a maize-
exporting site from the Mantaro Valley.
Based on studies such as these, I would expect to see low cob to kernel ratios at sites
that were not heavily involved in maize production, but rather received maize as trade or tribute.
At these sites, there should be little evidence of crop byproducts as compared to kernels. On the
other hand, I would expect that sites directly involved with maize production and processing
would have more cobs relative to kernels. Finally, as in the Moundville example, I would expect
that sites involved in producing maize for export to have even higher cob-to-kernel ratios; that is,
to have relatively more crop byproducts as compared to kernels. While using ratios of cobs or
cupules to kernels helps adjust for differences in preservation and collection in different regions,
the Moundville and Mantaro Valley data do not help to establish baseline ratios for sites
involved in exporting or importing maize. Instead, both cases rely on comparisons among
different sites in the same region.
I tested the hypothesis that Pedregal residents were involved in producing maize for
export by comparing cob to kernel ratios from Pedregal and Pacatnamú. Table 7.2 shows
densities and ratios for these two sites, as well as the Chimú-Inka occupation of El Brujo, in the
Chicama Valley. At Pacatnamú, Gumerman (1991) compared the average density of cobs and
kernels in soil samples recovered from excavated room groups. For all room groups at
Pacatnamu, the average density of kernels was much higher than that of cobs, and at the site
as a whole there were 0.26 cob fragments per kernel at Pacatnamú (Figure 7.7). At Pedregal,
average densities of cob and kernel fragments were calculated from soil samples only (soil
samples were taken systematically and processed similarly to Gumerman’s samples, making
208
Figure 7.7. Cob-kernel ratios at Pedregal and Pacatnamú
Table 7.2. Mean cob, kernel, and cupule densities at north coast sites
Pedregal
overall Sector A early LIP late LIP Pacatnamu El Brujo*
mean cobs/liter 0.37 0.2 0.28 0.21 0.2
mean kernels/liter 0.29 0.19 0.26 0.79 0.26
mean cupules/liter 7.35 4.26 5.34 NA 3.8
cob/kernel ratio 1.27 1.05 1.08 0.26 0.78
cupule/kernel ratio 25.52 22.42 20.54 NA 14.44
*Plescia (2003) does not provide raw data, so densities are estimated from bar graph (Figure
5.3)
209
sample data comparable between the sites). At Pedregal, cobs outnumbered kernels (1.27 cob
fragments/kernel). This suggests that Pedregal households were more heavily involved in
processing maize than Pacatnamú households, which tended to have fewer byproducts of
processing as compared to edible maize.
Another way to assess maize processing is by comparing cupules to kernels. Counting
cupules rather than cob fragments is more precise, since cob fragments can represent varying
proportions of a single cob, whereas each individual cupule represents the point where a kernel
would have been attached to the cob. At Pedregal, I counted fragments as cobs when the entire
circumference of the cob was present. I also counted all cupules, whether they were loose or
part of cob fragments. As Table 7.2 shows, the average cupule density in soil samples at
Pedregal was 7.35 cupules/L. Unfortunately, Gumerman did not calculate cupule densities at
Pacatnamú, but his student, Sara Plescia, calculated mean cupule densities in her MA research
on Chimú-Inka plant use at the site of El Brujo, in the Chicama Valley (Plescia 2004; Tate
2006). In Plescia’s El Brujo samples (Plescia 2004:Figure 5.4), there were 14.44 cupules per
kernel. Plescia (2004; see also Tate 2006:257) interprets this overabundance of cupules
(byproducts of processing) as compared to kernels (the edible portion of the plant) as evidence
that households at El Brujo were harvesting and processing corn in quantities that exceeded
household consumption, perhaps for transport to Inka state facilities. At Pedregal, there were
25.52 cupules per kernel, comparatively an even greater overabundance of processing
byproducts.
Comparison of cob to kernel ratios from Pacatnamú and Pedregal suggests that
Pedregal residents were more heavily involved in maize processing than residents of the
Lambayeque period valley center, and were also likely processing maize to be exported and
consumed elsewhere. Yet at Pedregal, the ratios of cob to kernel and cupule to kernel ratio did
210
not change markedly from the early to late LIP (Table 7.2). This evidence suggests that
Pedregal’s organization of maize processing did not change from the early to late LIP, even if
emphasis on products like maize and cotton did increase. The ratio of processing debris (cobs
and cupules) to the consumed product (kernels) did not change, which I argue indicates that the
relative balance of maize processing and maize consumption did not change from the early to
late LIP. Since maize made up a greater proportion of the botanical assemblage in the late LIP
as compared to the early LIP, we can conclude that Pedregal residents processed proportionally
more maize in the late LIP, but probably also consumed proportionally more maize. Maize may
have partly taken the place of other products such as fruit and wild plants in the late LIP diet at
Pedregal, though the overall breadth and diversity of the plant assemblage did not change.
The increased proportion of maize coupled with continuity in cob to kernel ratios
indicates that while the volume of maize processed increased and processing labor intensified
in the late LIP, neither the focus of household labor nor the range of household activities
changed markedly. The focus on processing apparent in the early LIP suggests that Pedregal
residents may have supplied elites at Pacatnamú or other sites with maize even before Chimú
arrival, and shifted their processing efforts toward supplying Chimú administrators after
conquest.
7.1.2 Processing meat and fish at Pedregal
As with plant processing sequencing, butchering tasks tend to follow established
sequences, which ultimately pattern the deposition of animal products and byproducts. At
Pedregal, fish, camelids, cuy, and dogs were butchered for household consumption.
Ethnographic sources suggest that camelid butchery would traditionally have been men’s work
211
(Gillin 1947; Miller 1979), while my personal observation in Cuzco and on the coast suggests
that women are more often involved in killing and butchering smaller animals such as cuy. Cuy
especially are butchered and prepared immediately, so butchering becomes a step in food
preparation rather than a separate and intensive job.
The generally wide range of camelid, cuy, and dog skeletal elements found shows that
Pedregal residents butchered whole animals. For example, Figure 7.8 shows the range of dog
skeletal elements from Pedregal; elements from most of the body were present. Elements from
most of the camelid skeleton were also present in the Pedregal assemblage. Camelid foot
elements (metacarpals, metatarsals, and other unidentified metapodials and phalanges) and
cranial elements were common at Pedregal; since crania and feet are among the least desirable
parts of the animal in terms of meat, and they would tend to be removed as the animal was
being butchered (Miller and Burger 1995). This evidence suggests that camelids were
butchered at Pedregal.
Figure 7.8. Dog skeleton, with identified elements at Pedregal highlighted in gray
212
Because camelid husbandry is no longer widely practiced on the coast, I have found no
ethnographic descriptions of coastal camelid butchering practices. Based on Miller’s
observations from the highlands, animals would have been slaughtered by either slitting the
throat or cutting into the abdominal cavity to stop the heart (a method also described
ethnohistorically). The skin would have been removed, and at this point lower and upper limbs
would have been separated by cutting the posterior surface of the point of articulation between
carpals or tarsals and metapodials. After evisceration, the carcass would have been cut up into
packages, as discussed below, and transported to where it would be prepared. Miller points out
that few bones would have been broken during slaughter and initial butchering, but almost every
bone was broken into several pieces during preparation. Miller (1979:21) reports that families in
the Andes butcher and consume a camelid no more than several times a year, so while
butchering a large animal like this would require intensive processing labor, it would not have
been a weekly or even monthly task.
Table 7.3 shows the Pedregal camelid assemblage by skeletal element and general
category, or meat packet, while Figure 7.9 shows the parts of the camelid body present in
Pedregal refuse. In considering the utility of different parts of the camelid skeleton, Aldenderfer
(1998) partitions the animal into five packets of differing utility. This partitioning is based on
ethnographic observations of camelid butchering (Miller 1979) and calculation of the utility
indices of different cuts of meat (Aldenderfer 1998:105). While, as Valdez (2000) points out,
there are different ways to butcher large animals like camelids, the five meat packets used by
Aldenderfer (Figure 7.9) are broadly comparable to ethnographically reported butchering
practices, help assign relative utility to different skeletal elements, and allow us to approximate
not only butchering patterns but differential consumption of preferential cuts at Pedregal.
213
Table 7.3. Pedregal camelid assemblage by element and meat packet
% of early LIP % of late LIP

camelid camelid
% of total camelid elements elements
Packet/element elements (n=864) (n=140) (n=160)
Head/neck 9.61 12.6 13.76
skull 3.47 2.85 2.5
axis/atlas 0.12 0 0.63
tooth 3.36 4.86 6.88
mandible 2.66 4.89 3.75
Forelimb 9.84 10 5.01

cervical vertebra 0.23 0 0
humerus 3.36 2.86 2.5
radius/ulna 4.63 6.43 1.88
metacarpal 1.62 0.71 0.63
Trunk 9.72 11.56 8.74

rib 5.79 7.86 3.75
pelvis 1.5 2.14 1.88
scapula 1.5 1.43 1.25
thoracic vertebra 0.81 0.13 1.86
sternum 0.12 0 0
Hindlimb 11.93 16.42 8.74

femur 4.75 2.14 0.63
tibia 5.21 10.71 6.86
metatarsal 1.97 3.57 1.25
End 0.23 0 0
lumbar vertebra 0.23
Unidentified 58.68 50 63.76

unspecified vertebra 5.67 11.43 5.63
unspecified
metapodial/phalange 6.6 11.43 2.5
other 0.12 0.71 0
unidentified long bones 15.97 13.57 20.63
unidentified fragments 30.32 12.86 35
214
Figure 7.9. Camelid skeleton, divided into five ‘meat packets’ (after Aldenderfer 1998), with
identified elements at Pedregal highlighted in gray
The different packets are fairly equally represented at Pedregal in general. According to
the guanaco utility indices presented by Aldenderfer (1998:106), the trunk packet has the
highest summed utility rating (209.2), followed by the hindlimb (108.9-142) and forelimb (100.1-
116.1), end (44.8), and head/neck (24.5). One problem with the data from Pedregal is that many
vertebral fragments could not be identified to cervical, thoracic, or lumbar vertebrae. Since
vertebrae are split among forelimb, trunk, and end packets, it is possible that these parts of the
animal may be systematically underestimated here. However, the bias is systematic and should
not affect comparisons of skeletal element distributions among households and across the site.
As Table 7.3 shows, the representation of different camelid meat packets varied from the
early to the late LIP. For most meat packets, late LIP proportions were lower than comparable
early LIP proportions; however, this is due to the larger percent of unidentified elements in the
late LIP. The head packet is overrepresented in the late LIP as compared to the early LIP and
the overall assemblage, but this is mostly because of the large number of teeth in the late LIP.
In contrast, forelimb and hindlimb packets each constitute a greater proportion of the
215
assemblage in the early LIP as compared to the late LIP, but because the sample of identified
elements was relatively small, the real difference between forelimbs and hindlimbs in early and
late LIP is six and nine elements, respectively. In sum, while there are some differences in meat
packet and element representation, these differences are weak and do not provide evidence for
marked differences in camelid processing or consumption in the early and late LIP.
Cutmarks, made as the animal is skinned and butchered, and as meat is cut from the
bone, also reflect meat processing patterns. Only two of the 39 dog elements had cutmarks, but
it is difficult to abstract butchery patterns from the presence of cutmarks on only two elements, a
rib and the distal portion of a humerus (Figure 7.10). The presence of cutmarks does, however,
indicate that dogs were butchered for meat and consumed in Pedregal households.
A total of 4.1%, or nine of the 220 the camelid elements identified, had cutmarks or other
modifications. In two cases, a distal metacarpal and a proximal tibia were sawn off evenly in the
middle of the diaphysis, probably in order to manufacture bone tools. These fragments showed
no further modification, and thus likely represent the portions removed in order to make the tool,
rather than preforms of the tools themselves. No finished bone tools were recovered during
excavation.
Only 3.2% of elements show cutmarks related to the butchering and skinning process.
Lower limb bones, specifically four astragali (Figure 7.11) and one metapodial diaphysis,
represent the majority of elements with cutmarks. The astragalus and the calcaneum are small
bones that articulate with the metatarsal and the tibia. The high incidence of cutmarks on the
astragalus shows that feet were separated from limbs by cutting through the joint at the bottom
of the tibia. A distal femur and an acetabulum also showed cutmarks. Most elements with
cutmarks have repeated parallel cuts, some of which are relatively wide and deep; camelid
butchering thus involved repeated hacking, probably by relatively wide stone blades, rather than
216
Figure 7.10. Dog humerus showing cutmarks
Figure 7.11. Camelid astragalus showing cutmarks
217
precision slicing. Since only seven camelid elements in total had butchery-related cutmarks, I
have no evidence for changing patterns in camelid butchering from the early to late LIP.
As I discussed in Chapter 6, camelid NISP makes up a greater proportion of the faunal
assemblage vis-à-vis fish in the late LIP than in the early LIP. Though differences in treatment of
camelids are not visible in the Pedregal assemblage, the increased proportion of camelid
elements suggests that Pedregal residents devoted more time to processing camelid as
compared to fish.
7.1.3 Fish processing
Elements from all parts of the fish skeleton were present at Pedregal. However, because only
vertebrae and otoliths (cranial bones) were used to identify fish to the species level, I do not
compare element distribution by species or through time. No cutmarks were observed on fish
bones. After they were caught, fish would have been gutted and any fish surplus preserved by
drying or possibly by salting. Most parts of the fish would likely have been used; today, fish
heads are used in soup or cooked along with the rest of the fish and served.
As might be expected at a small village several kilometers inland, no specialized drying
or storage areas, such as those discussed below, were identified at Pedregal. This lack of
archaeologically visible evidence for fish processing suggests that while fish were likely
processed for consumption and preserved for future use at Pedregal, families likely did not
devote much time to these activities on a regular basis, except perhaps in the case of a
particularly large catch. The low intensity of fish processing at Pedregal sharply contrasts with
the high intensity of fish processing and storage at specialized prehispanic fishing villages.
Sandweiss (1992) and Marcus (1987) find evidence of fish processing and storage at the sites
218
of Lo Demás and Cerro Azul on the south coast. These late prehispanic (LIP and Late Horizon)
sites were specialized fishing settlements likely involved in processing and preserving fish for
transport and trade. At Cerro Azul, Marcus (1987:55-56) found storage rooms filled with clean
sand and remains of anchovies, sardines, and other small fish. These small fish would have
been stored in layers of sand to keep them dry and preserved without the aid of salt. Sandweiss’
(1992) work at Lo Demás identifies several markers of specialized fish processing, including
remnants of fish-drying racks, matting associated with salt and fish scales, an overabundance of
cranial elements in comparison to postcranial elements, and the presence of higher levels of
salt on fish bones as compared to animal bones. In contrast to Marcus (1987), Sandweiss
(1992:112) suggests that fish were preserved by salting even before the arrival of the Spanish.
As I discussed in Chapter 6, comparison of early and late LIP fish and terrestrial
mammal assemblages at Pedregal shows that fish NISP decreased through time in relation to
terrestrial mammal (camelid, cuy, and dog). This suggests that time devoted to fishing and fish
processing decreased during the LIP. Ethnographic evidence (Hammel et al. 1962:222)
suggests that women are not generally involved in marine fishing, though they do gather
shellfish and seaweed from the shore. Men, on the other hand, are more heavily involved in
tasks related to fishing such as net and boat repair. If fishing was a largely male task at
Pedregal, then men’s workload may have been affected by the decrease in focus on fish as
compared to domesticated terrestrial fauna I described in Chapter 6. It is possible that instead of
fishing and processing fish, men devoted more time to agricultural production and raising
domestic animals in the late LIP.
219
7.2 FOOD PREPARATION AND MEALS
In this section, I discuss the work of cooking, serving, and eating. Much everyday household
practice is concerned with preparing daily meals, serving them to the family, eating and cleaning
up, and getting ready for the next meal. Family roles are reproduced and children are
enculturated through these structured, repeated tasks, which are often at the heart of domestic
life.
As studies of traditional cooking methods have shown (e.g. Bruneton 1989), food
preparation can be seen as an elaborate chain of technical decisions and habitual actions, akin
to the technological chaîne opératoire approach to craft production (Lemonnier 1992).
Bruneton’s (1975) description of the process of making bread in Morocco, for example,
highlights the influence of labor scheduling, economic constraints, and cultural standards on
women’s daily bread-making activities. In this case, daily food preparation was shaped by
technical considerations but also informed by unconscious patterns women learned as young
children and replicated in daily practice.
The material remains of daily food use are well represented in the archaeological record
at Pedregal, in the form of the spaces where cooking took place, the vessels in which food was
cooked and served, and the discarded remains and byproducts of food itself. However, not
every culinary operation that would have taken place in Pedregal households is equally
archaeologically visible. Therefore, I first examine some pertinent ethnographic and
ethnohistoric descriptions of Andean cuisine in order to explore the range of preparation
methods and recipes likely in use in coastal Andean kitchens and the ways in which food was
consumed. Different culinary operations like roasting, drying, and boiling require different tools
and would tend to leave different evidence in the archaeological record.
220
One central line of evidence for cooking, serving, and eating is the ceramic vessels used
for these activities, and after outlining north coast cuisine I move to a functional analysis of the
ceramic assemblage at Pedregal. Finally, I pull together ceramic, botanical, and faunal evidence
to discuss change and continuity in culinary practice in Pedregal households.
7.2.1 North coast cuisine
7.2.1.1 Haute cuisine in the Andes
In her insightful study of prehispanic Andean foodways, Bray (2003a, 2003b) combines
ethnohistoric accounts and ceramic analysis to reconstruct elements of Inka cooking and
cuisine and to suggest that the Inka developed an elaborate elite haute cuisine through specific
preparation and serving methods. Bray (2003a, 2003b) analyzed ethnohistoric accounts of Inka
cuisine, and concluded that Inka haute cuisine was differentiated from everyday foodways in the
Late Horizon by larger quantities of particularly desirable foods such as maize and meat, higher-
quality ingredients, and greater complexity (see also Hastorf 2003). According to Bray, meals
that incorporated a variety of different plates, dishes that included a variety of ingredients, and
dishes that required more time-consuming preparations were all markers of elite meals (Bray
2003b:102).
Bray then examined the culinary functions of vessels in imperial Inka ceramic
assemblages in the Inka heartland compared to the provinces in order to support her argument
that Inka conquest and control were expressed in part through commensal politics. The
distinctive Inka forms that spread to conquered provinces focused on the activities of serving
and eating, particularly preparing maize-based stews, serving chicha, and eating meat
(2003b:125). While these activities were not new to conquered provinces, the stylistically distinct
221
Inka vessels served to emphasize the distinction between the new Inka rulers and their
provincial subjects and consolidate Inka ideological control in the provinces (Bray 2003b:131).
Bray’s (2003a, 2003b) Inka case highlights several points about Andean cuisine and its
role in imperial politics. First, Andean haute cuisine may not have been signaled by special or
exotic ingredients, but rather greater proportions or varieties of desirable, high-quality
resources. Second, distinctive ceramic assemblages were central components of imperial
politics in part because of how they were used at special meals. Hence it is important to
investigate the role of such vessels in preparing and serving particular foods.
We have little evidence for how Chimú haute cuisine may have differed from that of the
Inka. Like the Inka, Chimú fineware assemblages were dominated by vessels appropriate for
serving and storing liquids, especially decorated blackware bottles, and by serving vessels.
Chimú serving vessels were plates with flat bottoms and high walls, much deeper than the
plates Bray describes and thus more suitable for liquid preparations like stews than more solid
foods like meat. Also distinctive in Chimú assemblages are small burnished blackware ollas.
Though no systematic analysis of ceramic assemblages between the Chimú heartland and
provinces has been carried out along the lines of Bray’s (2003a, 2003b) research, it is
interesting to note that the most distinctively Chimú vessels in provincial contexts tended to be
bottles and plates. Gumerman’s (1991, 2002) work in elite and commoner Lambayeque
compounds at Pacatnamú showed that elites had greater access to foods such as camelid,
chile peppers, and coca, while commoners relied more heavily on wild, opportunistically
gathered resources. While Bray argued that maize was special, desireable, and reserved for
elite meals in the highlands (Bray 2003b:102), maize was relatively evenly distributed among
elite and commoner contexts at Pacatnamú (Gumerman 1991). Chicha production was an
important activity at elite Lambayeque and Chimú palaces at San José de Moro, suggesting the
222
central role of serving and consuming chicha at elite meals and feasts. However, unlike in the
Inka case, keros or other vessels devoted specifically to drinking are uncommon in Lambayeque
and Chimú assemblages.
7.2.1.2 Reconstructing culinary operations
Bray used ethnohistoric accounts of Inka meals to add dimension to her functional
analysis of Inka imperial ceramic assemblages. While many ethnohistoric accounts focused on
highland practices, they provide a window on the rough outlines of prehispanic Andean cuisine.
In addition, accounts such as Gillin’s (1947) work in the village of Moche also provide some
ethnographic examples of cuisine and food preparation techniques from the coast. Insights into
customs of preparing and conserving food can also be gained from the food offerings left in
funerary contexts which, unlike midden remains, show the intentional placement of particular
ingredients in the vessels used to cook and serve them. Gumerman’s (1994, 1997b) discussion
of Moche funerary offerings at Pacatnamú and my own analysis of food offerings in
Lambayeque burials at Farfán (2005, 2007) suggest patterned differences between domestic
and mortuary food assemblages, even though both reflect the same culinary system. Funerary
food offerings tended to be less diverse and more focused around maize and, to a lesser extent,
other cultivated crops as opposed to fruits and wild plants. Gumerman (1994) suggests that
larger maize cobs were selectively included in burials, reinforcing the symbolic importance of
maize in coastal cultures. While recognizing the ways in which mortuary food offerings are likely
to differ from quotidian consumption, it is still possible to use these offerings to further
reconstruct food preparation on the coast. Together, ethnographic, ethnohistoric, and
archaeological evidence allows us to identify some of the most important food preparation
techniques used on the coast, and can even point us toward common recipes.
223
7.2.1.3 Stewing and boiling
Some of the most common preparations mentioned by ethnohistoric accounts are stews and
soups. During the colonial period, Cobo reported that in the Andes in general, maize was often
boiled and eaten in stews: “they made a certain kind of stew called motepatasca from whole
kernels of maize with some herbs and ají peppers. The maize was cooked until it split open”
(1990:198). Beans, quinoa, and meat, fresh or dried (ch’arki) were also eaten in stews. “From
[ch’arki] and from fresh meat, they only knew how to make one kind of stew called locro. It had a
lot of ají peppers, chuño, papas, and other vegetables. They made the same stew with dried
fish, which they ate quite often,” (Cobo 1990:198). The use of chuño, or freeze-dried potatoes,
suggests that this dish was particular to the highlands, but stews were common on the coast as
well. Seasonings in these stews were described as limited to salt, herbs and ají by Spaniards
used to more varied condiments.
Gillin (1947) reported that most families in Moche did not use ovens. Most foods were
cooked on top of stoves, and diverse ingredients, including land snails and small marine
bivalves and gastropods, were cooked in soups and stews. Further afield, Weismantel’s (1988)
research in Zumbagua, Ecuador, indicates that soups and stews played a central role in local
cuisine; the word for “to cook” in locally spoken Quichua actually meant “to boil” (127), indicating
the centrality of wet preparations in this case. Soups were made from water with a starchy
thickener, herbs, flavorings, potatoes, and extras like vegetables or pieces of meat. Other
dishes, such as grain-based gruels eaten for breakfast or supper, also involved similar wet-
cooking preparation techniques.
Even when the desired end product is not itself a stew, wet cooking was an essential
part of the preparation process. An example is the preparation of mote or tamales and humitas.
As they are prepared today, all three dishes require that maize be first boiled with ash to soften
224
and remove the skins before it is either eaten in a stew (mote) or steamed in corn or other
leaves as with humitas and tamales. Early Spanish accounts mentioned humitas (Cobo 1990)
but it is unclear whether this preparation was present in the prehispanic Andes or imported from
Mexico during the early colonial period. During a trip to the middle Jequetepeque Valley in 2006,
I observed two local residents burn a large cactus one night, then gather a bag of the cooled
ashes in the morning to take back to the village; they explained that cactus ash was one of the
best kinds for boiling with corn to prepare tamales.
In Lambayeque funerary contexts at Farfán (Cutright 2005, 2007), food offerings were
more likely to be found in ollas than in other vessel types, underscoring the importance of wet
cooking techniques in coastal cuisine. Several samples of beans in ollas even showed evidence
of having been cooked in this way. However, few common multi-ingredient combinations were
identified; although several offerings were composed of maize and beans or maize and small
fish, these associations were not statistically significant and shed little light on the recipes of the
soups or stews that might have been eaten by Pedregal residents.
Wet cooking techniques would be archaeologically visible largely the vessels used to
cook and serve soups and stews. Bones from meat cooked in stews would not be burnt, but
wear on the ends of long bones (pot polishing) shows where they would have rubbed against
the sides of cooking pots, and small unburnt fragments of crushed fatty bone might represent
stew leftovers. Analysis of residues from ceramic sherds also has the potential to identify soup
and stew preparations, and is increasingly used to identify vessel contents in the Andes (e.g.
Ikehara and Shibata 2008)
225
7.2.1.4 Roasting
Perhaps expressing a more general colonial Spanish point of view, Cobo (1990) disparaged
Andean roasts (and Andean cuisine in general): “in short, their cooking was so rustic and crude
that there was nothing other than poor stew and worse roast over the coals because they never
even had roasting spits” (198). Roasting, either directly in the coals or in earthen pits, was a
common Andean preparation method.
Today, a common roasting preparation, called a pachamanca, involves digging a pit and
heating stones in a nearby fire. After placing the hot stones in the pit, the pachamanca
preparers layer food (meat, potatoes and other tubers, corn, fava beans, and other ingredients
depending on the region) with more stones and banana leaves, and then cover the pit. The food
roasts below the ground for several hours. Cooking a pachamanca requires specialized
knowledge about timing and the order in which to place different ingredients into the pit. Unlike
other cooking, which is done almost entirely by women, pachamancas are often cooked by men.
They tend to signal special occasions of large-scale, festive consumption. Another, smaller-
scale pit-cooking method is the watia, in which a fire is lit in the pit itself until it is sufficiently hot,
then the fire is extinguished, tubers and meat placed inside, and the pit covered until the food
has cooked.
Pit-roasting features have been suggested archaeologically at highland sites such as
Jiskairumoko (Craig 2005) and Kala Uyuni (Moore et al. 2007) Moore et al. (2007:115) suggest
that pit-roasting deposits would contain both fuel and food plants, evidence of indirect heating
(low incidences of seed fragmentation and distortion), and while the meat cooked in the pit
would show no evidence of burning, pit cooking would char bones in deposits below and around
the pit. Roasting meat directly over the fire, in contrast, would result in charring on any part of
the bone not covered by meat.
226
7.2.1.5 Toasting
Toasting is another dry cooking method, accomplished by crisping food on a hot surface. Today,
toasted maize (cancha) is prepared on the coast as well as in the highlands and eaten as a
snack. Ethnohistoric accounts also mentioned toasting. According to Cobo (1990:198), maize
was “toasted in clay casseroles pierced with holes, and it is their bread. It is the most usual
ration of food that they take with them on their journeys, especially a maize flour that they
make.” In the Ecuadorian highlands, women in traditional households ground and toasted barley
into máchica every morning to be mixed with hot sweetened water at daily breakfasts
(Weismantel 1988). Gillin (1947) reported that corn was also ground and toasted in this way in
the coastal village of Moche; this corn preparation was also called máchica.
In the Andes, wide-mouthed vessels with short walls, sometimes perforated, called
cazuelas in Spanish were used for toasting grains and seeds. Botanically, toasted seeds might
be identified in deposits of concentrated food plants showing little distortion or fragmentation
from contact with fire (Moore et al. 2007:115). Toasted seeds might be subsequently ground
using a batán and chungo.
7.2.1.6 Fermenting
Another important mode of consumption of maize and other species was as fermented chicha;
in fact, Cieza de Leon (in Antúnez de Mayolo 1981:21) claimed that the Andean diet was so
poor that chicha provided necessary daily nutrition: “su mantenimiento es maíz y ají y cosas de
legumbres, nunca comen carne ni cosa de sustancia salvo algún pescado los que están cerca a
la costa y por eso son tan amigos de beber chicha, porque les hincha la barriga y les da
227
mantenimiento 24.” Though chicha was used in a variety of social and ritual settings (Morris
1979), it was also traditionally consumed daily throughout the Andes. Gillin (1947) estimated the
average daily consumption in 1940s Moche at about two liters per adult, making chicha an
important component of daily diet.
The complex process of chicha preparation involves multiple steps of boiling and
fermenting. Moore (1989:686) defines three major steps in chicha preparation: preparing the
maize, boiling it, and allowing the mixture to ferment. According to Gillin (1947:53), traditional
chicha preparation in the town of Moche began by allowing maize kernels to sprout for several
days (creating jora, or germinated, malted maize). The sprouted grains were then boiled with
water for 1-2 days, the resulting liquid was cooled and strained, sugar was added, and the
finished beverage was allowed to stand for 4-6 days. While Gillin (1947) reported that majority
of chicha made in Moche was maize-based, and in fact that most of the maize grown by
residents of Moche was either eaten on the cob or made into chicha, other ingredients like
peanuts or molle can also be used to make chicha. There is a good deal of variation and
creativity in chicha recipes, then, even if the basic preparation procedure remains the same.
Because of chicha’s importance in religious and political feasts, its prehispanic
preparation departed somewhat from the general outlines of Andean household food
preparation. Naymlap, the founder of the Lambayeque dynasty according to ethnohistoric
accounts, had among his retinue a male chicha brewer (Cordy-Collins 1990). Rostworowski
(1977) found documentary evidence for occupationally specialized chicha brewers (chicheros)
on the north coast. The Inka state organized specialized chicha production in a very different
way; chosen women called aqllakuna brewed chicha and produced textiles for state
24
“their sustenance is corn and ají and beans, they never eat meat nor anything else of substance except
those close to the coast eat some fish and for this reason they enjoy drinking chicha so much, because it
swells their bellies and gives them sustenance”
228
consumption, engaging in intensified production of activities that are usually understood to be
ideologically associated with femininity. Despite these examples of specialized chicha
production, it is clear that chicha was also produced consistently in household contexts on the
prehispanic coast. In the lower class neighborhoods of Manchan, a secondary Chimú center in
the Casma Valley, Moore (1989) found evidence for large-scale production of chicha by self-
sufficient households. At the site of San José de Moro in the Jequetepeque Valley, chicha
preparation was concentrated in elite household contexts (Prieto 2005), suggesting that chicha
formed an important element of political feasts and reciprocal relationships among elites and
between elites and commoners on the coast as in the highlands (Gero 1992; Hastorf and
Johannessen 1993; Jennings 2004; Morris 1979).
Moore (1989:686) outlines the archaeological correlates of chicha preparation (see also
Hayashida 2008 for another example from the coast). The first step, maize preparation, would
be indicated by maize, especially jora (malted kernels), large jars in which maize germinated
and the patio spaces where the jars would be left for several days, cloth or matting to cover and
sieve the germinated kernels, and a grinding stone used to process the germinated maize.
Cooking, the second step, would require placing large vessels over direct heat and stirring the
mixture. Large ladles, presumably chicha stirring tools, have been found in a Chimú chicha-
production area at San José de Moro (Prieto 2005). Finally, the liquid must be strained (using
cloth or basketry as a sieve) or the dregs allowed to settle and the liquid must be fermented in
large jars. This step would be indicated archaeologically by the presence of large jars and by
deposits of dregs, or alfrecho. Hayashida (2008) points out that dregs are often fed to domestic
animals, and thus they may not always be visible archaeologically.
229
7.2.1.7 Serving and eating
Ethnohistoric descriptions of practices related to consumption often focus around chicha
drinking; the Spanish accounts often sound highly critical of Andean celebrations consisting of
several days of public drunkenness. López de Atienza describes ordinary people sitting on the
ground to eat, where “se les pone la comida en sus mates, en lugar de platos y escudillas, que
son unas medias calabazas que siembran para usar 25” (Estrella 1986, 63). Cobo’s (1990)
description of traditional serving and eating customs is more detailed; he recounts that men and
women ate together, but sat back to back; women kept the pots of food close at hand to serve.
One of the best examples of an account of the gendered dynamics of everyday eating
activities comes from Weismantel’s (1988) work in Ecuador. While strict seating positions were
not enforced in Zumbagua kitchens, there was a strict serving order, with men or guests served
first, in the biggest and best dishes, and the rest of the family served in descending order of
importance. Because soups consisted of potatoes and chunks of meat that were first placed in
the dish, then covered in broth, the way the woman in control of the cooking pot apportioned the
higher quality or larger pieces could be used to signal the relative importance of guests or the
personal opinions of the cook. In this example, the daily ceremony of serving and eating was
gendered (the woman cooks and the man eats) but also expressed subtle social sanctioning
and marked inequalities in status.
7.2.2 Ingredients
In Chapter 6, I outlined the range of foods consumed at Pedregal, and identified shifts from the
early to late LIP in the proportions of different species. No new ingredients became prominent in
25
“they place their food in mates, in place of plates and saucers, which are halves of gourds they grow for
this use”
230
Pedregal meals from the early to the late LIP; the range of foods did not change. However, the
focus on particular ingredients changed over the course of the LIP. Taken together with the lack
of evidence for changes in processing and export, this evidence suggests that consumption
patterns changed at Pedregal through time. In particular, residents likely consumed more maize
and camelid meat in the late LIP than in the early LIP, and less fish and fruit. Though I did not
excavate burials at Pedregal, bone isotope evidence could be used to confirm this shift in the
future.
7.2.3 Culinary technology at Pedregal
Implements used in food preparation and consumption at Pedregal consist of ceramic vessels,
gourd containers and lithic tools. Hearth features also provide evidence of household food
preparation, and are discussed in greater depth when I consider the spatial organization of
household activities in Chapter 9. In this section, I use the ceramic assemblage at Pedregal to
evaluate shifts in cooking and serving practices. Of the different culinary operations outlined
above, the most archaeologically visible in the Pedregal were wet cooking (stewing and boiling),
serving and storing liquids, and serving wet foods like soups and stews.
I am most concerned with the functional characteristics of the assemblage and the
insights it generates into the culinary operations being carried out in Pedregal households
(though see Appendix E for a brief discussion of stylistic typologies). Functional ceramic
analysis has focused on relating particular technical attributes to the mechanical performance of
vessels (Braun 1983; Henrickson and McDonald 1983; Rice 1987; Sinopoli 1991; Smith 1985).
As Sinopoli (1991:84) points out, there is a strong relationship between the intended function of
a vessel and characteristics such as the size of the opening, ease of access to a vessel’s
231
contents, volume, and vessel stability. The paste, temper, shape, wall thickness, and surface
finish of a vessel all contribute to its utility for certain operations and its ability to withstand the
mechanical stresses of activities like heating or transport. For example, a vessel used for
heating liquids over a fire should be able to conduct heat well, allow easy access for stirring,
and resist thermal shocks. These requirements would affect wall thickness, temper, and shape
of the body and mouth.
Because ceramic production can be characterized as a set of tradeoffs between
production cost, mechanical performance, and intended use, ceramic vessels are not always
perfectly suited to their intended use, and vessels are also not always used in for their intended
use. It is not, therefore, always enough to merely consider the mechanical properties of ceramic
vessel forms. Ethnohistoric or ethnographic descriptions have often been used to connect
particular vessel forms with preferred uses (Arnold 1993; Hildebrand and Hagstrum 1999;
Kempton 1981). Rice (1987) makes the point that direct evidence of vessel use is rarely present
in the archaeological record. In addition to considering the technical attributes of vessels and
employing ethnographic analogy, archaeologists have increasingly used direct evidence from
chemical residues and phytoliths to link foods and vessel forms (Evershed et al. 1992; Heron
and Evershed 1993; Ikehara and Shibata 2008). Associations between food and vessels in the
context of funerary food offerings can also contribute to interpretations of vessel use (Cutright
2005, 2007).
One whole vessel and one partial vessel were recovered at Pedregal. The following
discussion of ceramic culinary technology thus relies necessarily on analysis of diagnostic
sherds. Diagnostic sherds were drawn and attributes such as form, rim diameter, thickness,
paste, firing, and surface finish were recorded. Basic observations on thickness and finish were
also made on non-diagnostic sherds. Overall, 2,091 diagnostic sherds and 21,259 non-
232
diagnostic sherds were analyzed, representing a range of forms related to culinary activities like
wet cooking, serving and storing liquids, and serving and eating (Table 7.4). The functional
characteristics of these vessels relate to the requirements of daily culinary practice, while
changes in size and shape over time, or changes in the overall makeup of the assemblage,
would indicate changing culinary priorities over time.
Table 7.4. Pedregal ceramic assemblage
% of Pedregal assemblage % of early LIP % of late LIP assemblage

Form (n=1989) assemblage (n=335) (n=344)
olla 30.12 32.24 ± 5 38.67 ± 5.1
plate 4.12 5.67 ± 2.5 7.27 ± 2.7
tazon 15.33 24.78 ± 4.6 14.24 ± 3.7
tinaja 11.16 10.15 ± 3.2 8.14 ± 2.9
jar 20.26 9.25 ± 3.1 6.67± 2.6
other 3.42 1.49 ± 1.3 .58 ± .8
unknown 15.59 16.42 ± 3.9 24.42 ± 4.5
7.2.3.1 Ollas
Ollas, with their thin walls, globular shape, and relatively wide mouths, are well suited to
heating, stirring, and serving liquid preparations (Figure 7.12). Rounded bottoms conduct heat
evenly to the contents and distribute weight evenly, which gives the vessel greater overall
strength. Ollas are an all-purpose form in Andean kitchens today, and are used for cooking,
informal serving, especially of soups and stews, and short-term storage of ingredients or
leftovers. Today, ollas range in size (in terms both of rim diameter and of volume) depending on
the number of people for whom food is being prepared. They are often placed directly over the
fire, resulting in significant fire-blackening from the base to the shoulders.
The ubiquity of the olla form in domestic and mortuary contexts in the Jequetepeque
indicates the importance of this form in prehispanic cuisine. The olla was the most common
233
form in the LIP occupation of Pedregal. 30.1% of diagnostic sherds 26 were from ollas. In
Lambayeque burials at Farfán, ollas were also the most common vessel type, representing 37%
percent of the total assemblage (Cutright 2005). 17% of the ollas in Lambayeque burial contexts
at Farfán were fire-blackened (Cutright 2005), showing that they had been put to utilitarian use
before being included in burials 27. In Lambayeque burials at Farfán, ollas were the most likely
vessel class to contain food remains.
LIP ollas in the Jequetepeque were rarely decorated beyond simple cross-hatched or
linear patterns produced by paddle stamping. Lambayeque ollas often have a press-molded
band with a simple geometric design around their shoulders in addition to the paleteada design
(Figure 7.12c), and white slip was applied either over the whole vessel or at the lip. Some have
two small handles or pierced lugs on the shoulders to aid in handling the vessel. Chimú and
Chimú-Inka ollas present in later burials at Farfán and centers like Chan Chan are reduction-
fired, burnished, and mold-made. Characteristic Chimú motifs such as waves or piel de ganso
stippling are often present on these ollas, which tend to be somewhat smaller than redware
26
All percentages in this section calculated out of the total number of diagnostic sherds, not including
surface collections (N=1989). Surface collections were omitted because they represent nonsystematic
collections of unusual forms, rather than a systematic sample of the entire assemblage.
27
Diagnostic olla sherds, mostly rim sherds, at Pedregal only rarely exhibited fire-blackening. This is likely
because fire-blackening tends to be heavier on the base and body of ollas. The one complete vessel
recovered at Pedregal did exhibit heavy fire-blackening on the base and body that did not extend above
the vessel’s shoulders.
234
Figure 7.12. Ollas from Pedregal. a) complete carinated olla with textile covering mouth
(not to scale); b) Lambayeque-style olla with high sinuous neck; c) LIP carinated olla with press-
molded band; d) mold-made, reduction fired olla with wave design
paleteada ollas (Figure 7.14c). Neckless blackware ollas with strap handles appeared near the
end of the Chimú sequence in the Moche and Jequetepeque Valleys.
At Pedregal, characteristically Chimú blackware ollas (Types G and H; see Appendix E)
made up 4.5% of the total olla assemblage (n=600), which was otherwise dominated by
relatively undecorated, paleteada-made redware ollas with carinated rims (Types A, B and C;
71% of ollas). There were no strong or significant differences in the proportions of different olla
types between the early and late LIP (see Appendix E), nor was the difference in the proportion
of the ceramic assemblage made up by ollas in the early and late LIP statistically significant
(Figure 7.13, Table 7.4).
235
Because only one complete vessel was recovered during excavations at Pedregal,
average olla volume is unknown. Ethnographic observations of modern ollas in the
Jequetepeque conducted during a visit to the middle valley in 2007 suggest a very close
relationship between rim diameter and overall vessel height, which suggests that rim diameter is
likely to be strongly correlated with vessel volume. Mean olla rim diameter decreased by 0.5 cm
on average from the early to late LIP, but this small difference was not significant (Table 7.5),
suggesting that overall vessel volume remained constant. In sum, the aspects of cooking
represented by ollas showed great continuity through the LIP at Pedregal. I found no evidence
for changes in preparation or consumption linked to olla size preference.
7.2.3.2 Jars
Jars made up 20.3% of the total assemblage (Table 7.4). Jars were distinguished from ollas
during analysis on the basis of their longer necks and more restricted mouths. Restricted
openings and higher necks would have made jars appropriate for storing and serving liquids.
Few jar sherds show evidence of fire-blackening, suggesting that these forms would not have
been used for cooking. The proportion of the assemblage represented by jars did not change
appreciably or significantly between the early LIP and the late LIP (Figure 7.13); indicating that
household activities related to serving and storing liquids remained relatively constant through
time at the site. Mean jar rim diameter decreased by 2.5 cm from the early to late LIP, a
marginally significant difference.
236
Table 7.5. Mean rim diameters of selected ceramic forms in early and late LIP assemblages
olla tazon tinaja jar

mea mean mean mean
n rim rim rim rim
diam diam diam diam
n (cm) t-test n (cm) t-test n (cm) t-test n (cm) t-test
early 106 11.01 t=1.679 76 20.13 t=1.637 33 41.7 t=.194 29 14.46 t=1.857
late 132 10.45 p=.095 44 18.46 p=.104 27 41.15 p=.847 20 11.95 p=.07
Figure 7.13. Proportions of selected vessel forms in early and late LIP ceramic
assemblages
237
7.2.3.3 Serving vessels
Food was served in several different kinds of vessels at Pedregal, including ceramic bowls and
plates and gourd bowls (mates). These vessels had wide mouths and deep rims, and would
have been appropriate for serving and eating liquid and semi-liquid preparations like soups and
stews, which probably would have been daily fare in Pedregal. Gourd bowls would likely have
supplemented ceramic vessels in daily use, since they were used for daily meals on the coast
until fairly recently (Cobo 1990, Gillen 1945). Excavations recovered one complete mate bowl
and limited mate fragments, but it is difficult to reconstruct a culinary assemblage from these
fragments. Ceramic bowls and plates are more visible in the archaeological record, but it is
possible that they were used for special meals rather than daily consumption.
Ceramic bowls (tazones) are not generally present in Late Moche domestic
assemblages in the Jequetepeque (Rosas 2003, Swenson 2004); this form first appeared in
Jequetepeque assemblages in the Lambayeque period and was common in Lambayeque
burials at Farfán (Cutright 2005, 2007). In the Jequetepeque, LIP bowls had either low ring-
shaped bases or higher (~15-20 cm) pedestal bases. Some bowls had molded bands below the
rim reminiscent of the molded bands on Lambayeque period ollas, and some had white or red
paint around the rim.
At Pedregal, bowls made up 15.3% of the total assemblage. All bases recovered at
Pedregal were the higher pedestal form (Figure 7.14). Red and white paint and press-molded
bands were present on some, but not all, Pedregal bowl rim sherds (see Appendix E). Tazones
were present in the early and late LIP occupations at Pedregal, but represented a smaller
proportion of the total ceramic assemblage in the late LIP (Table 7.4). Like characteristically
Lambayeque ollas, tazones continued throughout the LIP sequence at Pedregal and formed
part of the local Jequetepeque assemblage that shows little stylistic change through time. The
238
average rim diameter or tazones at Pedregal, like that of jars and ollas, decreased slightly from
the early to late LIP, but this difference was not significant (Table 7.5).
Figure 7.14. Tazon rims and bases from Pedregal. a) white with red interior paint; b) press-
molded exterior; c) white with red interior and exterior paint; d) low base; e) high base
The other LIP serving vessel in the Jequetepeque assemblage is the plate. Plates are
differentiated from bowls on the basis of their flat bottom, a pronounced ‘elbow’ between the
relatively vertical rim and the relatively horizontal base, and their generally flat, squared-off rim
(compared to the rounded rim characteristic of bowls) (Figure 7.15). In contrast to tazones,
plates in Jequetepeque assemblages were generally burnished reduction-fired blackware, and
some had mold-impressed bases. Plates often had two holes just below the rim, which were
likely points of attachment for a lid made of perishable materials. Plates were characteristic
Chimú and Chimú-Inka forms, common in Chan Chan’s ceramic assemblage (Topic and
Moseley 1983) and present in in Chimú-Inka period burials at Farfán (Mackey and Jáuregui
2004).
At Pedregal, plates made up 4.1% of the total assemblage (Table 7.4). Pedregal plates
were mostly burnished, reduction-fired blackware, though redware plates were also found.
239
Though this form is most often associated with Chimú and Chimú-Inka assemblages, a small
handful of plate sherds were found in early LIP strata. The proportion of the diagnostic
assemblage made up by plates increased from the early to late LIP (Table 7.4). Because they
are characteristic Chimú and Chimú-Inka forms, plates represent one way that the local
Jequetepeque assemblage was altered by influence from the Chimú state, though plates had
filtered into the Jequetepeque by the early LIP at Pedregal. Even by the late LIP, plates did not
replace bowls in the Pedregal assemblage, and represented only a small proportion of the total
ceramic assemblage.
Figure 7.15. Plates from Pedregal. a) reduction-fired plate with press-molded bottom;
reduction-fired plate with holes likely used to attach a cover
Plates and bowls, as vessels that would have been used to serve and consume soups
and stews, are functionally similar. I combined plates and bowls to investigate changes in food
serving though time. Serving vessels made up a significantly smaller proportion of the ceramic
assemblage in the late LIP as compared to the early LIP (Figure 7.13). This evidence suggests
shifts in the organization or location of community consumption, perhaps in the context of
feasting. I will discuss this change, in the context of feasting at Pedregal, in Chapter 8.
240
Figure 7.16. Tinajas from Pedregal. a) incised circle design; b) incised lines; c) incised
design
241
7.2.3.4 Storage vessels
Large vessels (tinajas or paicas), along with unprepared or plastered pits, were used to store
food in north coast households. Tinajas had round bases, thick walls with coarse temper, wide
mouths, incurving sides with no neck, and generally flat lips. Their round bases could have been
set into household floors; the many round depressions in floors and sterile strata in the
excavated units at Pedregal may be related to this practice. Tinajas were generally incompletely
fired and relatively undecorated except for the sloppy, irregular application of white slip around
the rim. A few tinaja rims at Pedregal had impressed designs (Figure 7.16; see Mackey
2003:Figure 17 for a Chimú-Inka example from Farfán), but these were rare. In addition to
storing liquid and food, tinajas could also have been used for preparing and fermenting chicha.
The prevalence of this form, then, does not directly indicate either volume of storage or intensity
of chicha making, but could relate to either activity.
Tinajas made up 11.2% of the ceramic sample at Pedregal. Mean tinaja rim diameter
was 39.8 cm, but many rims were too large to measure on the rim diameter charts that ended at
55 cm The proportion of the ceramic assemblage represented by diagnostic tinaja sherds did
not change significantly through time (Table 7.4), and mean vessel diameter decreased only
slightly between the two LIP occupations (Table 7.5). Household demand for tinajas and
activities relating to tinajas seem to have remained constant from the early to late LIP.
7.2.3.5 Other vessels
Another vessel type associated with food preparation is the rallador. Ralladores are bowl-
shaped vessels with flat rims and deep ridges carved in the interior in linear or curved patterns
(Figure 7.17). These vessels are often assumed to have been used to grate soft foods, because
they tend to lack the heavy usewear that would suggest use with harder substances. Though
242
rallador sherds are commonly found in domestic contexts, ralladores were apparently not
considered appropriate for inclusion in funerary contexts at Farfán and have not been recorded
in other burial assemblages (Cutright 2005, 2007). Ralladores made up only 0.8% of the total
Pedregal ceramic assemblage. As Figure 7.17 shows, several different ridge patterns were
identified, but it is unclear whether different designs have any chronological significance. The
Pedregal sample was too small to identify any meaningful chronological patterning in rallador
form or pattern.
Figure 7.17. Rallador from Pedregal
Bottles with restricted necks and elaborate decoration were not common in Pedregal
households. These forms made up 0.3 % of the total LIP domestic assemblage, but were much
more commonly found in the looted cemeteries and on top of the looted platforms in Sector B
than in the residential area. Most bottle fragments from Pedregal have characteristic Chimú and
Chimú-Inka decorative motifs (piel de ganso and other mold-made designs, molded steps on
the vessel shoulder) and rim forms (everted lips or straight necks). One bottle fragment clearly
belongs to a Lambayeque blackware bottle with a pedestal base, reminiscent of classic Late
Sicán bottles. Two other fragments belonged to a characteristic Chimú-Inka blackware aríbalo
(and could be from the same vessel). During the Chimú and Chimú-Inka periods, these kinds of
243
vessels were typically produced in central, state-sponsored workshops (Hayashida 1999; Levine
2003).
Other bottle fragments were not clearly state-produced. A number of sherds appeared
initially to be fineware bottles, but their reduction firing was incomplete or their decoration was
irregular. It is possible that these sherds represent local imitations of state styles, executed less
expertly than vessels made by ceramic specialists in state institutions. It is not clear if these
reproductions would have been produced at the site (the one mold fragment recovered in
surface collections was from a cemetery, and no other evidence of ceramic production was
found) or at nearby sites. The role of local fineware imitations in hinterland households,
however, is intriguing.
Fine forms were thus present at the site, but only in very small proportions as compared
to domestic forms like ollas, jars, bowls, and tinajas. It is not likely, then, that Pedregal
households acquired large quantities of fine state ceramics, either in exchange for the
agricultural products being produced by Pedregal farmers or to be used as part of hinterland
ceremonial serving activities in imitation of state patterns, or as part of changing stylistic
preferences by local residents.
7.2.3.6 Other evidence
The presence of at least one batán at the site suggests that ground maize might have been
used in preparations such as chicha. Smaller pestles could have been used for smaller tasks,
such as grinding food like ají into a paste. However, I recovered little evidence for tools used in
food preparation activities like cutting, chopping, and grinding. I also found no evidence for tools
related to food consumption. Ceramic spoons in highland Cajamarca styles and wooden spoons
244
occur rarely in coastal burials (Castillo 2004; Mackey and Jáuregui 2003), but I found no spoons
at Pedregal.
Faunal remains at Pedregal also provided some evidence for patterns of food
preparation. The camelid assemblage was highly fragmented, and contained few whole
elements larger than a phalange. This corresponds with Miller’s (1979) ethnographic
observation that when families in southern Perú eat a camelid, almost all skeletal elements are
eventually broken and cooked in stews to release flavor and grease from the bones.
7.3 TEXTILE PRODUCTION
Spinning and weaving were ubiquitous tasks in Andean households, but these activities also
transcend the boundaries of simple household production. In the native Andean world, cloth was
used to mark ethnic and class differences and express cosmological and calendrical principles,
and cloth production was deeply structured by gender ideologies (Costin 1996, 1998; Gose
2000). In the following section, I will review evidence for the organization and gendering of
textile production in the Andes before turning to evidence for the organization of this work at
Pedregal.
7.3.1 The social organization of textile production in the Andes
In the Andes, cloth production was carried out in several different contexts, by members of
diverse social categories. At the time of conquest, three different groups were involved in
producing textiles in Inka society. Aqllakuna, or chosen women, spun, wove, and brewed beer
245
for the Inka state in special installations called aqllawasi. Silverblatt (1988), Gose (2000), and
others have argued that aqllakuna embodied Inka ideals of femininity and represent the co-
optation of female production (brewing and spinning) for state aims. Aqllawasi were thus loci of
specialized and intensive cloth production. At least some textiles were produced in similarly
specialized workshop contexts on the pre-Inka north coast. One often-cited Moche fineline
vessel shows a group of women using backstrap looms to weave under the gaze of a
supervisory figure (Donnan and McClelland 1999:126). Shimada (1994) has identified a
possible weaving workshop at the Late Moche site of Pampa Grande in the Lambayeque Valley.
There is some ethnohistoric evidence that male specialists also wove high-quality cloth for state
consumption (Costin 1996; Graubart 2000). In Cabello de Balboa’s account of the foundation of
Lambayeque society by Ñaymlap, one member of Ñaymlap’s retinue was a male weaving
specialist (Cordy-Collins 1990).
Spinning and weaving were not restricted to specialists working in attached workshops.
Women throughout the Andes spun and wove for household consumption and to supply tribute
to the state. Ethnohistoric accounts of the Inka empire, including Guaman Poma’s (1980[1615])
illustrations of Inka daily life and history, strongly associate women with spinning and weaving.
Based on her reading of these accounts, Silverblatt (1987) states simply that “women were the
weavers of Andean society. Never idle, women were always spinning,” (9). Women often spun
while walking from place to place, a practice that can still be observed today in the Andean
highlands.
Many researchers have argued that women in the Andes not only engaged in the daily
task of textile production, but were conceptually and ideologically linked to textile production.
Costin (1996:127), for example, argues convincingly that cloth production was conceptualized
as women’s work, and that most textile production was probably carried out by women. During
246
the colonial period, women were associated with the ‘traditional’ activities of spinning and
weaving with backstrap looms (Graubart 2000:554). Ethnographic photographs taken on the
north coast in the late 19th and early 20th centuries show only women involved in spinning and
weaving (Schaedel 1988:88-93), and more recent ethnographic studies confirm that women are
the predominant spinners and weavers in the Andes today (Bourque 1999). Mortuary evidence
from the north coast reinforces this idea. Prieto (2007) reports that almost all Lambayeque-
period female burials at San José de Moro contained artifacts related to textile production. He
points out that spinning artifacts, as opposed to weaving equipment, were associated with
higher-ranking women, and suggests that the act of transforming natural cotton into cultural
cloth would have been particularly symbolically charged. In Lambayeque burials at nearby
Farfán, weaving baskets containing needles, spindles, spindle whorls, and chalk were
overwhelmingly associated with females (Mackey personal communication). Despite the
ethnohistoric accounts that both men and women may have spun and woven in prehispanic
Andean society (Graubart 2000), then, it is very likely that women’s labor is reflected in the
evidence for non-elite, household cloth production at Pedregal.
7.3.2 Spinning
After cotton was harvested and initially processed to remove the seeds, it was spun into thread
on wooden spindles weighted with spindle whorls (Figure 7.18). Several spindles and nine
whorls (piruros) were found at Pedregal. Whorls were made of stone or ceramic. A single
ceramic whorl was decorated with incised circles, but the rest were unadorned. Pedregal
spindle whorls were small and light compared to larger whorls associated with highland
247
spinning; they have a mean weight 28 of 2.5 g. and are on average 0.86 cm thick and 1.52 cm in
diameter. Figure 7.19 illustrates several representative piruros, and Table 7.6 summarizes
spindle whorl data.
Spindle whorls from the contemporaneous middle Jequetepeque valley site of Las Varas
(Tsai 2007) looked very different from Pedregal whorls. Two classes of spindle weights are
present in Las Varas households; smaller piruros and larger, flatter torteros, which were made
from reshaped sherds. Pedregal whorls are smaller and lighter than both piruros and torteros
from Las Varas (Cutright and Tsai ms.). A comparison of spindle whorls from Pedregal in the
lower valley and Las Varas in the middle valley reveals a similar difference to that observed in
the lower and middle Nasca Valley (Vaughn 2000), where spindle whorls from lower valley
Pajonal Alto (Conlee 2000) were smaller and lighter than whorls from Marcaya (Vaughn 2000)
in the middle valley.
Table 7.6. Spindle whorls at Pedregal
Weight Thickness Diameter

Number Sector Area Unit Occupation (g) (cm) (cm) Material
1769 A 2 4 late LIP 1.1 1.1 1.136 Stone
1934 A 2 4 late LIP 1.8 1.8 1.312 Stone
2133 A 6 5 late LIP 4.25 4.25 1.8 Stone
2135 A 6 5 early LIP 2 2 1.442 Ceramic
2375 A 6 5 early LIP 1.6 1.6 1.247 Stone
2380 A 7 PP30 NA 2.4 2.4 1.711 Stone
2420 A 6 5 early LIP 4.4 4.4 1.812 Stone
2809 A 2 4 early LIP 1.2 1.2 1.153 Stone
2810 A 6 2 early LIP 3.8 3.8 2.111 Ceramic
28
For partial whorls, original weight was estimated.
248
Figure 7.18. Example of spinning from the middle Jequetepeque Valley
Figure 7.19. Selected spindle whorls from Pedregal
249
This difference likely relates to the kind of fiber being spun; spinning wool requires a
heavier spindle whorl than more delicate cotton. However, even the smaller piruros from Las
Varas are larger and heavier than those from Pedregal, suggesting that Pedregal residents
were focusing on producing particularly fine cotton thread, perhaps to supply nearby valley
centers in addition to household needs.
I had hypothesized that spinning, especially of delicate thread used in high-quality
textiles, would intensify through time at Pedregal. Cloth was a common tribute item in the
Andes, and the Chimú were likely interested in extracting tribute from conquered populations.
Intensification of cloth production for tribute would be seen in an increase in the relative number
of spindle whorls in the later occupation or in a decrease in whorl size and weight, suggesting a
focus on finer fabric. However, as Table 7.7 shows, I observed no significant difference in
weight or diameter between occupations. Though spindle whorl density was slightly higher in
earlier moments at the site (0.227 whorls/L in the early occupation compared to 0.168 whorls/L
in the later occupation), this small difference does not signal a noteworthy increase in the
intensity of spinning activities in Pedregal households.
Table 7.7. Spindle whorls by occupation at Pedregal
t-test on
Occupation N Mean difference
early 5 2.6 g.
Weight late 3 2.38 g. t=0.2, p=.85
early 5 0.9 cm
Thickness late 3 .84 cm t=.41, p=.69
early 5 1.55 cm
Diameter late 3 1.42 cm t=.49, p=.64
250
7.3.3 Weaving and sewing
Several different kinds of looms were in use on the coast at the time of contact. One of the most
common was the backstrap loom, in which one end of the cloth is secured to a stable point and
the other end is wrapped around the back of the weaver to maintain the necessary tension.
Backstrap looms were depicted on the Moche fineline vessel discussed earlier. Finished cloth
would have been sewn with copper needles.
I found no loom parts at Pedregal. This is interesting, especially since evidence from
nearby San José de Moro suggests that spinning implements tended to be associated with the
burials of higher status women, while weaving tools were associated more often with the burials
of slightly lower class (though still elite) women (Prieto in press). If this association held true
outside mortuary contexts, then weaving should have been be more common among the lower
class population of Pedregal. However, it is likely that weaving implements would have been
conserved and less easily lost than spindle whorls, and thus they were simply not recovered
during excavation. Copper needles, however, were found in LIP and Late Moche household
contexts at Pedregal and in the flat area in front of the platforms. Within Sector A, needles were
concentrated in post-abandonment contexts, specifically superficial and wall-fall layers; they
seem to have been conserved and only lost or discarded when the site was abandoned. Needle
density did not change from the early to late LIP (0.0004/L in the early LIP; 0.0005/L in the late
LIP), which indicates that women’s sewing activities remained relatively constant through time in
Pedregal households.
Comparing evidence for textile production from houses at Pedregal and SIAR
households highlights the lack of evidence for intensive textile production at Pedregal. Bundles
and skeins of spun thread were common in lower-class SIAR houses at Chan Chan (Topic
251
1977). While some scraps of thread were recovered from Pedregal houses, there is no evidence
that residents were storing skeins of thread as at Chan Chan. This difference could suggest that
Pedregal households were not as focused on craft production activities as SIAR households 29.
Pedregal textiles range from simply woven cotton cloth to more elaborate tapestry-style
colored fragments (Figure 7.20) The more elaborate fragments were found in platform contexts,
indicating that the looted platform burials included fine textile grave goods. High-quality textiles
have been found in mortuary contexts at Pacatnamú and other sites on the Pampa de Faclo
(Boytner 1998; Donnan and Donnan 1997) and Pedregal enjoys similar preservation conditions.
Though no formal analysis has yet been carried out on Pedregal textiles, cursory examination
shows that textiles from domestic contexts were woven more simply (1x1 or 2x2 weaves
predominate) and display a more muted color palette (browns, whites, and blues are most
common) than fancier fragments found in platform contexts.
Figure 7.20. Textile fragment from Pedregal
29
I thank John Topic for highlighting this difference during a conversation in Trujillo in 2008.
252
7.4 GENDERING HOUSEHOLD WORK
Change and continuity in the intensity of the different household tasks discussed above
would have had implications for the sexual division of household labor at Pedregal. For this
reason, I was particularly concerned with how the organization of men’s and women’s labor in
Pedregal households may have changed through time. I based my reconstructions on
ethnographic and ethnohistoric evidence for the gendering of particular household tasks in the
Andes, which I have discussed above.
The clearest changes in household work at Pedregal were an increase in the intensity in
production and processing of maize and cotton, and a shift in focus from fish to domesticated
animals. Increased labor devoted to maize and cotton processing likely placed greater demands
on women’s labor. However, I found no evidence for food preparation tradeoffs, such as the
preparation of larger meals to save time. In fact, mean vessel size decreased, though slightly,
through time. I also found no evidence for changes in textile production activities, which
remained relatively constant through time. From the archaeological evidence at Pedregal, it was
not clear how women may have reorganized their daily workload to accommodate more time
spent on processing maize and cotton.
Since fish made up a smaller proportion of the faunal assemblage in the late LIP, it is
likely that the time men devoted to fishing decreased from the early to late LIP. Domesticated
animals like camelid and cuy replaced fish in the faunal assemblage, so more time must have
been allocated to obtaining water and fodder for these animals. However, I found no changes in
how camelids were processed between the early and late LIP. Men’s labor may also have been
redirected from fishing and the time-consuming maintenance of fishing tools toward agricultural
production, which increased in intensity in the late LIP.
253
Attributing particular tasks to men or women in the past must be undertaken with
caution, and it is also important to remember that while household labor was likely organized
according to gendered norms at Pedregal, other variables like age were also likely important in
structuring household labor patterns. However, looking at how particular tasks, such as maize
and cotton processing and fishing, may have been gendered, I was able to identify how some of
the diachronic changes in domestic tasks such as procurement and processing that occurred at
Pedregal during the LIP may have differentially affected men and women.
7.5 CONCLUSIONS: DAILY HOUSEHOLD WORK AT PEDREGAL
Pedregal residents initially processed plants and animals away from the house, then brought
them back to be further processed (dried or ground), stored, and prepared for consumption.
Cooks probably used a suite of different techniques, including roasting and stewing, to prepare
food, but the archaeological evidence speaks to the centrality of stewing and boiling in Pedregal
cuisine. Fire-blackened ollas dominated the ceramic assemblage, while ceramic forms that
would have been used to toast maize or serve dry foods were not present in LIP assemblages
at Pedregal or elsewhere in the Jequetepeque.
The low incidence of burnt elements suggests that bones were rarely exposed to direct
heat (roasted over a fire); the presence of burnt and calcined bone fragments is better explained
by post-consumption burning in hearths or middens (Miller 1979). Thus evidence from Pedregal
suggests that stews and soups played a predominant role in daily cuisine. However, it is likely
that some foods would have been roasted over indirect heat (as in pit-roasting), fermented (as
254
with chicha), or eaten raw. Food would likely have been served informally from ollas into gourd
or ceramic bowls.
The most visible changes in household culinary tasks related to processing rather than
preparation. The intensity of maize and cotton production and processing increased from the
early to late LIP, while the emphasis on tree fruits and wild species decreased. This evidence
suggests that household members, especially women, would have spent more time processing
these crops. On the other hand, I found little evidence for change in the organization of food
preparation tasks. Percent of burnt elements, patterns of cutmarks, and fragmentation of the
faunal assemblage remained the same, as far as can be discerned in the sometimes limited
sample. No new forms, representing distinct culinary techniques, appeared in the assemblage
during the late LIP occupation. Proportions and size (as approximated by rim diameter) of
cooking and storage vessels also remained constant. One shift in the household assemblage, a
decrease in the proportion of the assemblage made up by serving vessels, may point to
changes in large-scale consumption events such as feasts, which I discuss in Chapter 8. The
outlines of daily meals at Pedregal, then, likely remained stable even as other household tasks
such as crop processing increased in intensity.
Other daily household tasks at Pedregal included spinning and weaving, carrying water,
caring for domestic animals, obtaining fuel, making tools, cleaning, and childrearing. Of these
tasks, textile production was among the most archaeologically visible. In addition to raw cotton,
spindles, spindle whorls, and needles were present in household assemblages at Pedregal.
Spindle whorls were small in comparison to middle valley whorls, and were likely used to
produce fine cotton thread. I observed no change in spindle whorl frequency or size through
time at Pedregal, suggesting that the intensity of textile production and the desired end product
remained relatively consistent through time, even as cotton production increased. In general,
255
while I saw no change in the range of household activities carried out at Pedregal, I did observe
a clear shift in their relative intensities.
256
8.0 THE RITUAL LIFE OF PEDREGAL HOUSEHOLDS
Daily life in Pedregal households did not consist only of the daily tasks of food production and
processing, the preparation and consumption of daily meals, and the other domestic tasks I
have discussed thus far. Household and community life also encompassed rituals at multiple
scales, from small ritual offerings of burnt maize within houses to community feasts. Some of
these rituals used products imported from far beyond the limits of the village, and so household
and community-based ritual acts also incorporated Pedregal residents into wider spheres of
interaction.
Archaeological investigations of ritual in the Andes have tended to focus on the state
and community levels. Numerous studies have addressed ritual space at monumental sites
(Chicoine in press; Kembel 2001; Moore 1996; Swenson 2006, 2007) and investigated evidence
for ritual practices such as feasting (Lau 2002), sacrifice (Benson and Cook 2001; Bourget
2001; Verano 2001), and mortuary ceremony (Castillo 2001, 2003; Dillehay 1995; Isbell 1997).
Ethnographic investigations of ritual have also focused on the village level to detail ceremonies
that mark lifecycle events, agricultural festivals, or celebrations of local deities (Abercrombie
1998; Bourque 1995; Harris 1982; Isbell 1978), or on strong and continuing traditions of
shamanic curing on the north coast (Bussman and Sharon 2006; Joralemon and Sharon 1993).
Domestic ritual has not been as widely studied in the Andes as in other regions such as
Mesoamerica (e.g. Marcus 1998; Plunkett 2002). Ritual offerings of animals like cuy (Sandweiss
257
1992) have been noted in coastal households. Figurines were commonly used on during the
Moche period (Cordy-Collins 2001; Johnson in preparation; Ringberg 2008). However, figurines
are less often found in LIP households on the north coast, though they are not uncommon in
mortuary contexts (Kent et al. 2004; Mackey and Jaúregui 2003).
8.1 HOUSEHOLD RITUAL AT PEDREGAL
I did not recover any figurines at Pedregal. Pedregal residents did, however, place intentional
offerings of several different kinds of material within their houses. These offerings were small in
scale, and perhaps related to construction or closing of particular spaces or structures.
8.1.1 Maize offerings
The ritual offering most commonly encountered during excavations at Pedregal consisted of
carbonized maize cobs and kernels. These usually appeared as discreet features of highly
charred maize in household fill. In many cases, at least one complete cob with kernels was
present, differentiating these features from hearths or ashy deposits containing accidentally
burned seeds or incompletely burnt maize cobs and other fuel (Figure 8.1) Maize offerings were
most common in Area 2, particularly in the food production areas uncovered in Unit 1, but they
were not restricted to this part of the site.
These offerings do not represent much investment in time or energy on the part of
participants. They employ maize, which was of course locally produced and readily available in
Pedregal households. Maize, however, is often accorded a particular ritual significance in the
258
Andes. In burials in the Jequetepeque, maize is often a preferred food offering (Cutright 2005,
2007; Gumerman 1994, 1997b) and Gumerman (1994) suggests that large cobs with many
rows of kernels were preferentially selected for inclusion in burials by the Moche at Pacatnamú.
Due to the small sample of whole cobs from ritual contexts, I did not observe a statistically
significant difference between cobs from ritual and other contexts. The burnt maize ears in
household offerings at Pedregal, then, likely represent small, quotidian ritual acts.
Figure 8.1. Profile view of burnt maize offering in Unit 1
8.1.2 Spondylus offerings
Spondylus shells were also left as offerings in Pedregal households. Spondylus princeps is a
species of large mollusk that lives in the warm coastal waters of Ecuador. Because it does not
thrive in the colder waters off the Peruvian coast, people in Peru had to obtain Spondylus
through interaction with groups to the north (Paulsen 1974). Prehispanic Andean cultures had
259
attached ritual significance to Spondylus since the Early Horizon, but demand for the shell
escalated over time. The LIP witnessed an explosion of Spondylus in iconography and ritual
(Martin 2001). The Chimú in particular imported large quantities of Spondylus on large rafts from
Ecuador, and Spondylus occupied an important place in Chimú royal ritual and iconography
(Cordy-Collins 1990; Pillsbury 1996). In addition to being fashioned into beads (chaquiras) and
ornaments, in the LIP Spondylus valves were burnt, powdered, and interred whole in large ritual
caches and burials (Martin 2001:81) at sites like Farfán (Mackey and Jaúregui 2001).
Figure 8.2. Spondylus offering, Area 2, Unit 1
Spondylus valves were also used as offerings by Pedregal residents, but on a much
reduced scale. Two whole Spondylus valves were intentionally placed as an offering in Area 2,
Unit 1 (Figure 8.2). A more elaborate offering of Spondylus fragments and pierced Nectandra
seeds was placed in the corner of one room in Area 4, Unit 3 at the end of the sequence of
occupation. Pierced seeds of the Nectandra plant are commonly found in LIP burial contexts
around the necks of individuals (Mackey and Jaúregui 2001), and were likely strung together
260
and worn as necklaces. Below this offering, separated by a thin lamina of sterile, water-
hardened sediment, another deposit of Spondylus and Nectandra was encountered. This
offering had been placed in a specially prepared plastered area (Figure 8.3). Based on their
proximity to the surface, it is likely that these materials were left as a closing or even post-
abandonment offering.
This offering was composed entirely of non-local elements: Spondylus, a warm-water
shell imported from Ecuador, and Nectandra, a plant that grows in the eastern Andean slopes
and Amazonian lowlands. The presence of these species in a small closing offering at Pedregal
implies that even residents at small rural villages had access to exotic ritual goods that also
featured in elite ceremonies at large centers. Spondylus offerings were found in two of the three
excavated households, indicating that this exotic material was not restricted to one family.
Figure 8.3. Spondylus and Nectandra offering, Area 4, Unit 3
261
Figure 8.4. Hair bundle offerings
262
8.1.3 Hair offerings
Textile-wrapped bundles of hair were also left as ritual offerings in one Pedregal household
(Figure 8.4). Two such bundles were found interred under a banqueta in Sector A, on top of a
feature cut into sterile subsoil. Each of the bundles measured approximately 50 x 30 x 10 cm
They appear to be solid bundles of long, brownish human hair. Simple cotton textiles were
wrapped around the hair and knotted, and one of the bundles was secured with a sliver of wood
pushed through the knot like a pin. No other artifacts were associated with these two bundles.
Unlike the Spondylus and Nectandra offering, these bundles consist of locally produced
and intensely personal materials. While I have found no mention of similar textile-wrapped hair
bundles in the north coast literature, textile-wrapped ritual offerings have been found in colonial
contexts at the site of El Brujo in the Chicama Valley (Quilter and VanValkenburgh 2008),
suggesting the persistence of this tradition even after Spanish arrival. The burial of these hair
offerings could have been related to the construction of the banqueta above them, or to rituals
related to life-cycle ceremonies or other activities of the house occupants.
8.2 COMMUNITY-WIDE RITUAL AT PEDREGAL
In addition to small household offerings, evidence for ritual activities at the community scale was
abundant at Pedregal. The several cemetery areas at the site allude to the funerary rites
enacted by residents of the site, though my excavations did not prioritize the heavily looted
cemeteries and the few test units placed there encountered only disturbed contexts. We have
more information about activities surrounding the two low platform mounds at the site. The
263
construction of the mounds was a community task, and feasting and burial rituals took place on
and around the mounds through the LIP.
8.2.1 Platform construction
Two low platform mounds were built to the north of the LIP residential area (Figure 8.5).
Looters’ cuts and excavations, discussed in Chapter 4, show that each platform was
constructed using different methods. Both platforms show evidence of slow expansion and
multiple building episodes over time rather than quick construction according to one coordinated
plan. The small population of Pedregal would have been able to organize episodic labor and
construction on a community level, using crop by-products like maize stalks and locally
prepared adobes and fill.
Figure 8.5. Platforms 1 and 2 at Pedregal
264
8.2.1.1 Platform chronology
Regional ceramic and adobe brick chronologies, while not fully developed, allow platform
construction to be tentatively dated. Diagnostic ceramics recovered from levels of fill in sealed
contexts (below floors or levels of undisturbed fill) were not numerous, but also provide some
clues about when the platforms were constructed. Sherds in styles characteristic of Late Moche
and Lambayeque periods were present in the fill, but no Chimú-style blackware, carinated ollas,
or plates were present. This suggests that the platforms were constructed no earlier than the
Lambayeque period (or that only fill from earlier occupations was used). The ceramics in the
construction fill corresponded to earlier and more utilitarian styles than the ceramics recovered
during surface collection on the platforms, discussed below.
Adobe bricks have also been used as chronological markers in the Andes. Kolata
(1982), for example, used changes in adobe brick form at Chan Chan to establish the sequence
of ciudadela construction. However, McClelland’s (1986) seriation of adobe bricks at Pacatnamú
is the most relevant to the platforms at Pedregal because of the time period under examination
and because of Pedregal’s proximity to Pacatnamú. McClelland (1986) suggests that brick form
and color change through time at Pacatnamú, from flat-rectangular bricks with marks from cane
molds in the Moche period to flat-rectangular or ovoid at the end of the sequence 30. In the last
buildings constructed at Pacatnamú, adobe manufacture became less standardized, and
McClelland identifies more sub-types. Later bricks were usually finished by hand and often laid
in irregular courses.
30
For McClelland (1986), as for the rest of the contributors to the first volume of the Pacatnamú Papers
(Donnan and Cock 1986), Pacatnamú was occupied in the Chimú period and was an important ritual and
pilgrimage center. Subsequent examination of the material and chronological revisions now place
Pacatnamú’s occupation in the Lambayeque period (Donnan 1997). Thus we can infer that McClelland’s
“Terminal Chimú” period corresponds to the last Lambayeque constructions at the site, before its
abandonment at the time of Chimú arrival in the valley.
265
Table 8.1. Pedregal adobe dimensions
length (cm) width (cm) height (cm)

n mean range mean range mean range
16 35 30-44 20 17-27 11 10-14
Figure 8.6. Adobes from Platform 2 surface
266
Though adobe bricks were not systematically sampled at Pedregal, loose adobes were
collected from the surface and measured (see Table 8.1) and in situ adobes were also
observed. Adobes at Pedregal (Figure 8.6) correspond most closely to McClelland’s ‘Terminal
Chimú’ flat-rectangular and flat-bottomed ovoid types (1986:28). This evidence supports a late
Lambayeque period (pre-Chimú arrival) construction date for the Pedregal mounds.
8.2.2 Platforms as loci of burial rites
Surface collections from the platforms and the surrounding Sector B suggest that platforms
were used at least in part as mortuary structures. The platforms were heavily looted, but
fragments of fineware vessels, finely woven and decorated textiles, and personal adornments
such as beads suggest that at least one individual buried in Platform 2 was accorded a relatively
elaborate burial. Figure 8.7 illustrates selected beads found in disturbed fill, while Figure 8.8
shows part of a feathered headband recovered from the same context. Other artifacts, such as
the pyroengraved mate shown in Figure 8.9, were also found in looters’ backfill on the surface of
the platform.
Much of the fine, reduction-fired blackware found at the site was recovered from the
surface of the platforms, especially Platform 2. These sherds include characteristically Chimú
motifs such as waves and piel de ganso (see Figure 4.25 for examples). Either these vessels
were interred with the individual(s) buried in Platform 2 or they were used in ceremonies that
took place at this platform. In either instance, their presence indicates that Pedregal residents
did have access to state-produced fineware, either directly from state officials or through
interaction with local elites. This fineware is not typically present in household refuse, but rather
was reserved for consumption in burial or other ritual contexts at community platforms.
267
Figure 8.7. Selected beads from Sector B
Figure 8.8. Feathered headband from Sector B
268
Figure 8.9. Pyroengraved mate from Sector B
8.2.3 Platforms and public areas as loci of feasting
The consumption of food and drink at large-scale, festive meals, or feasts, is a common
component of political and religious ceremonies in diverse cultures. Archaeologists have
increasingly turned attention to the dynamics of political competition and alliance building that
can take place at feasts (Dietler and Hayden 2001). Feasting can be an important element in
the emergence and maintenance of elite authority, and elite households are often differentially
involved in hosting feasts (Gero 1992; Junker et al. 1994).
In the Andes, feasts played multiple political and ritual roles. They could, for example,
provide an important link between royal or community ancestors and the living (Hastorf 2003;
Lau 2002; Ramirez 2005; Sillar 1992). Most importantly, in Andean traditions feasts also
269
allowed hosts to mobilize labor through a system of reciprocal obligations. Morris (1979), for
example, argues that feasts, and particularly chicha, represented an opportunity for Inka elites
to convert staple foods such as maize into labor, by feasting labor parties engaged in state
agricultural or construction projects. Even today in the Andes, agriculturalists provide food and
drink to laborers fulfilling (or creating) reciprocal obligations by helping with the harvest (Mayer
2001).
The importance of feasting in political and economic dynamics is highlighted in evidence
from the Mantaro Valley (D’Altroy and Hastorf 2001). Before Inka arrival, elite households were
more involved in feast-related activities, such as chicha production, than commoner households.
After Inka conquest, this difference narrowed as a new political stratum of Inka administrators
was introduced above local elites. During the Inka period, men also consumed relatively more
maize than women, which Hastorf (1991) argues indicates men’s greater participation in political
feasts held not within households, but rather at state administrative installations. Thus an
important strategy of the Inka government was to co-opt the feasts previously hosted by local
elite households, thus mobilizing labor and alliances for state ends. This example shows that in
situations of conquest, feasting may be relocated from households to state centers.
Swenson (2007a) argues that in the Jequetepeque, the Chimú exerted only indirect
control over the population’s ritual practice. The many LIP ceremonial sites identified by
Swenson (2004, 2007a) in the Jequetepeque hinterland show a variety of architectural
configurations that both emulate Chimú forms but also maintain strong local elements and
display continuity with past ceremonial architecture. To Swenson, this variety suggests that
hinterland communities were able to draw on the Chimú tradition while maintaining local
autonomy in ritual practice. Like the ceremonial architecture that Swenson (2007a) discusses,
Pedregal’s public architecture combines a rectangular cobble enclosure (Sector C) that
270
resembles Chimú and Lambayeque rectangular compounds with two low platforms in the earlier
local huaca tradition. Thus ritual or ceremonial activities in public spaces at Pedregal may have
reinforced continuity and autonomy at the local level even during the Chimú occupation.
Feasting may have been one such ritual activity at Pedregal. Archaeologically, feasting
activities are indicated by large serving and cooking vessels, high concentrations of serving
vessels for food and drink, spaces such as plazas set aside for large gatherings, and foods that
outstrip those served at everyday meals in terms of quantity and quantity. Faunal, botanical, and
ceramic evidence from Sector B suggests that feasts took place in this area.
8.2.3.1 Faunal evidence for feasting at Pedregal
In any culinary system, certain foods are preferred over others. These preferred foods, whether
rare, high in calories or fat, or requiring special or time-consuming preparations, often appear in
elite, or haute cuisines and special occasion meals. In the Andes, past and present, camelids
are a preferential meat that appears more often in elite meals or feasts than in the everyday diet
(Bray 2003a, 2003b; Gumerman 2002; Hastorf 2003). Thus feasts at Pedregal might be
expected to include more camelid meat than everyday meals, and we might expect feasting
refuse to contain higher proportions of camelid as opposed to other meat. As Figure 8.10
shows, this is the case for Sector B as compared to Sector A.
Some portions of the animal carcass offer more meat than others, and so it is possible to
identify higher and lower value cuts of animals (Aldenderfer 1993; Binford 1978). Higher value
cuts usually include neck, trunk, and sternum areas, while lower limbs and tails are bonier and
offer less meat. Since higher value cuts might be preferentially chosen for feasts and special
meals, feasting assemblages should contain larger proportions of skeletal elements from choice
cuts.
271
Figure 8.10. Camelid NISP as a proportion of faunal assemblages (excluding fish) in
Sectors A and B
Figure 8.11. Camelid meat packets by proportion of identified elements in Sectors A and B
272
In Chapter 6, I describe Aldenderfer’s (1993) division of the camelid skeleton into five
different meat packets. Aldenderfer (1993) also calculated utility indices for each packet. The
trunk packet, which contains the most meat, has the highest utility index, followed by hind and
forelimbs, and the much less meaty head and tail sections. While the trunk packet may have
been systematically underrepresented by the faunal analysis (see Chapter 7), analysis was
consistent throughout the site so it is still possible to compare the proportions of different
packets among sectors. As Figure 8.11 shows, the distribution of meat packets, and the shape
of the overall assemblage, varied between Sectors A and B. Elements from the trunk packet
made up a greater proportion of the Sector B assemblage as compared to the Sector A
assemblage, while the Sector A assemblage had proportionally more head/neck elements. In
general, the Sector B assemblage shows more emphasis on high value cuts than does the
Sector A assemblage.
8.2.3.2 Ceramic evidence for feasting at Pedregal
If feasting took place in Sector B, we might expect to see a greater focus on vessels related to
serving and consumption such as jars and bowls or plates, than on cooking or storage vessels.
Indeed, jars made up a significantly greater proportion of the vessel assemblage in Sector B
(Figure 8.12). However, serving vessels (bowls and plates) represented a larger proportion of
the assemblage in Sector A, providing somewhat mixed evidence that the ceramics deposited in
Sector B relate to feasting.
273
Figure 8.12. Selected vessel class proportions in Sectors A and B
Table 8.2. Mean rim diameters of selected ceramic forms in Sector A and B
Sector A Sector B
mean rim mean rim
form n diameter (cm) n diameter (cm) t-test
olla 423 10.74 135 11.63 t=3.279, p=.001
tazon 173 19.2 96 21.15 t=2.707, p=.007
jar 80 12.95 138 16.64 t=3.990, p<.0005
274
Feasts prepared for and served to large groups of people might require larger vessels on
average, so we might expect to see ollas or serving vessels with wider rim diameters in Sector
B. In fact, a t-test shows a significant difference in mean olla, bowl, and jar rim diameter
between Sector A and B (Table 8.2). Vessels in Sector B were on average larger. However,
mean olla rim diameter only differs by about 1 cm while mean bowl rim diameter is about 2 cm
larger in Sector B than Sector A. These differences, while significant, are fairly small and do not
necessarily represent meaningful differences in vessel use or capacity. Mean jar diameter,
however, differed by almost 4 cm between the two sectors, which may represent a more
meaningful difference in vessel size.
8.2.3.3 Botanical evidence for feasting at Pedregal
The focus on jars in the ceramic assemblage of Sector B points toward a focus on serving and
consuming liquids like chicha, rather than food preparation and processing activities. A
comparison of the botanical assemblages from the two sectors also supports this idea. Sector
A’s botanical assemblage shows a much stronger focus on maize processing than Sector B’s.
Maize cobs and kernels make up only 7.8% of the Sector B botanical assemblage as compared
to 21% in Sector A; a chi-square test shows that this difference is very significant (χ2=421.72,
p<.0005). If maize was consumed in Sector B, it was likely in the form of chicha. Maize for
chicha could have been processed and prepared in Sector A along with maize for daily meals,
resulting in the clear focus on maize processing in Sector A as compared to Sector B.
275
8.2.4 The social organization of feasts
If feasting did take place in Sector B, what was the social context of these feasts? Were these
exclusionary ceremonies designed to reinforce differences between elite and commoner
populations or were they communal rites aimed toward community integration? One way to
approach the nature of feasting at Pedregal is by looking at the associated architecture. As
Moore (1996) points out, architecture, and particularly public architecture, is built according to
particular social, political, and ideological priorities, and so examining how people moved
through and experienced particular architectural configurations can lead us to think about the
kinds of interactions and activities that would have possible in particular spaces.
Chimú compounds, whether ciudadelas at Chan Chan or administrative compounds in
the provinces, were surrounded by high walls. Access to the interior was restricted by narrow,
baffled entrances (Moore 1996, 2003). Earlier Lambayeque architecture at Pacatnamú
consisted of adobe platforms enclosed by rectangular compounds and showed a similar pattern
of restricted access and visibility (Donnan 1986). The LIP hinterland ceremonial sites described
by Swenson (2007) encompass a wide variety of architectural forms, as I discussed above.
Rectangular cobble compounds with internal subdivisions are common on the Pampa de Faclo
and recall the huaca-compounds of Pacatnamú, while hillside terraces, ramps, and platforms
are also common at LIP ceremonial sites. Swenson (2007: 76-78) points out that baffled entries
and indirect access are common features of this ceremonial architecture, though some sites
also contain spaces appropriate for larger and more inclusive ceremonies.
In contrast to patterns of restricted access and visibility common at larger LIP centers,
the public space in Sector B could be freely accessed by residents of Sector A. While a large
rectangular compound (Sector C) lies to the north of the platforms, there is no evidence that this
276
space was internally subdivided. The perimeter walls from this sector extend south to partially
delimit Sector B. There is no evidence that access to or visibility of activities taking place in
Sector B would have been restricted from people in Sector A. The low platforms would have
provided effective stages for ritual activity, but there were no more private, enclosed spaces
(like the complexes of small rooms and storerooms found behind Early Horizon platforms in the
Jequetepeque, for example) to restrict participation in some events. The whole community could
have participated in the feasts and other rituals that took place in Sector B. This fact suggests
that these activities may have been aimed more at community integration as opposed to social
exclusion
8.2.5 Change through time in feasting at Pedregal
As the Mantaro Valley example discussed above suggests, patterns of feasting might be
expected to change under state control. Specifically, feasting might move out of the household
or community level to state installations. Evidence from the Jequetepeque suggests that,
contrary to this expectation, local elites continued to host feasts during Chimú and even Inka
control of the valley. At Cabur, a local lord’s palace south of the river, public architecture was
built and remodeled in Lambayeque styles during the Chimú occupation of the valley, which
leads Sapp (2002:145-146) to argue that local lords’ access to labor and involvement in rituals
like feasting continued throughout the Chimú and even Inka periods. To Swenson (2004, 2007),
the varied architecture at hinterland ceremonial sites in the Jequetepeque suggests that
hinterland communities were able to draw on the Chimú architectural tradition while maintaining
local autonomy in ritual practice. The evidence from Pedregal also suggests that ritual or
ceremonial activities, such as feasting, in public spaces at Pedregal may have reinforced
277
continuity and autonomy at the local level even during the Chimú occupation of the valley,
making it unlikely that Chimú administrative centers like Farfán subsumed all ritual and political
feasts in the Jequetepeque after Chimú arrival.
Limited evidence for changes in patterns of feasting and food consumption does exist at
Pedregal. In the LIP residential area, proportions of serving vessels, and especially bowls,
decline significantly from the early to late LIP. This is the single significant change in vessel
proportions between earlier and later occupations, and relates to a shift in the kind of meals that
were consumed in Sector A, or changes in the locus of consumption of certain kinds of meals.
It was difficult to stratigraphically relate Sector B contexts to the superimposed floors and
features that make up the early and late moments of construction identified in Sector A.
However, there is some reason to believe that construction and use of Sector B may relate
more closely to the early moment of LIP occupation. The platforms were likely constructed
during the Lambayeque period, based on ceramic and adobe chronologies. Characteristics of
Sector B’s ceramic assemblage such as olla rim diameter, neck height, and carination form (see
Appendix E) correspond more closely with the early residential occupation than they do with the
later occupation; in other words, Sector B and the early LIP occupation of Sector A share a
more similar ceramic assemblage (in terms of style and form) than do Sector B and the late LIP
occupation. This pattern suggests that activities in Sector B might have been more intense or
frequent during the early LIP occupation of the site, and thus feasting may have been more
common during this earlier phase of the occupation, while the presence of Chimú fineware from
looted tombs on the surface of the platforms suggests that the platforms remained important
well into the Chimú occupation of the valley.
278
8.3 PEDREGAL IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE RITUAL LANDSCAPE
As Swenson (2004, 2007) points out, hinterland ceremonial sites proliferated in the
Jequetepeque during both Late Moche and Late Intermediate Periods. In addition to these local
level ritual sites, large centers like Farfán and Pacatnamú also served as foci of public ritual.
Pacatnamú ritual architecture consists of large huaca-compounds with small internal plazas,
audiencias, and corridors surrounding adobe platform mounds. A tapestry-weave textile
recovered at the site (Donnan 1986) shows ceremonies involving a central figure sitting on a
dais, surrounded by dancers, weavers, and figures holding sacrificed camelids. Camelid
sacrifices were found during excavations in huaca-compounds at Pacatnamú, suggesting that
the kinds of ritual activities depicted on the textile may have taken place within these
compounds. At Farfán, compounds contained ritual architecture such as concilios and altars in
the Lambayeque period and burial mounds in the Chimú period (Mackey in press). Late in the
prehispanic sequence, in the Chimú-Inka period, high-status burials accompanied by large
quantities of reduction-fired blackware in state styles, camelid sacrifices and caches of
Spondylus also occurred at Farfán (Mackey and Jaúregui 2001).
The ceremonies that took place at Pacatnamú and Farfán likely did not include the
majority of Jequetepeque Valley residents. The high perimeter walls and restricted internal
spaces would not have permitted large audiences to attend ceremonies inside the compounds,
and the finely woven textiles and fine blackware vessels related to these activities suggest
participation by elites and state diplomats rather than local farmers. However, ceremonies at
Pedregal employed some fine blackware vessels and took place in public architecture that, in
some ways, emulated that of Pacatnamú and Farfán, though at a reduced scale. Pedregal
residents participated in a wider, shared ritual tradition, even if they did not attend ceremonies at
279
Pacatnamú or Farfán. The presence of exotic goods like Spondylus and Nectandra in
household offerings at Pedregal indicates that Pedregal residents were involved in regional
spheres of interaction and trade in special-purpose goods, whether they obtained these items
directly from long-distance traders or indirectly via local contacts. There is no evidence that
ritual activities in Pedregal households or in the community as a whole were exclusionary, nor
that they served to emphasize differences among households. Rather, repeated household
offering rituals, platform construction, and feasts were likely part of a cycle of ritual activity that
promoted community integration.
280
9.0 THE HOUSEHOLD IN THREE DIMENSIONS
In this chapter, I turn attention to spatial and temporal patterns in household activities at multiple
scales. Spatial variation can be studied at different levels, from the organization of space and
activity areas within households, to inter-household differences in culinary preferences, craft
activities, and wealth or status within the same community, to the regional patterning of different
resources. Household activities also vary along temporal cycles of different lengths. Basic
activities like cooking, eating, and sleeping occur daily, while other activities are repeated along
longer weekly or monthly cycles. In many agricultural societies, economic and ritual cycles are
tied to the annual round of planting and harvesting. While temporal variation may be harder to
reconstruct archaeologically than spatial variation, I attempt to address issues of temporal
rhythms and seasonality in the second section of this chapter.
9.1 USE OF SPACE AND SPATIAL DIFFERENTIATION
A central concern of household studies has been not only identifying what activities took place
in the house, but determining how these activities were socially and spatially organized.
Ethnographic and cross-cultural research has highlighted how architecture and the use of space
in households are linked to issues such as gender and power (Sikkink 1988; Weismantel 1988)
281
and social complexity (Kent 1990). Ethnographers and ethnoarchaeologists like Bourdieu
(1973), Donley-Reid (1990), Hodder (1987), and Moore (1986) argue for a reflexive relationship
between domestic space and culture, and direct our attention to the emic meaning of household
space.
Whether they are interested in reconstructing the economic activities of the household or
unraveling the social and symbolic elements of daily practice, archaeological studies have
focused on artifact distributions and architecture to address the use of space in past
households. Activity area studies have traditionally been conducted by mapping the placement
of each artifact on or near floors and then identifying clusters of functionally related artifacts to
reconstruct use of space within the household (Binford 1983; Hendon 1997). Schiffer (1985) has
pointed out that while many archaeologists assume that archaeological floor assemblages
represent the actual set and distribution of activities taking place contemporaneously inside the
house, this is rarely the case. Instead, Schiffer argues, floor assemblages are palimpsests of
multiple household activities that are also subject to a series of depositional and post-
depositional transformations that change artifact proportions and spatial distributions.
Another way to approach household activity patterns is by analyzing architecture, the
spaces that provide the structure and context for household practice. Architectural spaces
provide opportunities for some kinds of actions and interactions and limit others, and these
possibilities can be approached by analyzing sight lines, access patterns, room capacity,
segmentation, and other physical characteristics (Hiller and Hanson 1984; Kent 1990; Moore
1992). In addition, architecture is often less affected by the kinds of deposition processes
Schiffer discusses than are portable artifacts, and so architectural layout may provide a more
direct link with prehistoric activity patterns. For example, Sweely (1998) has used access
patterns and metate location to reconstruct women’s activities and power relations at the Maya
282
site of Cerén. Similarly, Gero and Scattolin (2002) discussed the social organization of different
household activities like grinding maize and working metal based on the locations of features
such as hearths and metates in houses at the site of Yutopian, in Argentina.
9.1.1 Activity areas and use of space within Pedregal houses
Floors encountered during excavations at Pedregal were typically clean, with relatively few
directly associated artifacts. Most artifacts were found in feature fill or in layers of fill between
floors. Between-floor fill represents a mixture of artifacts and sediment that accumulated on the
floor with the refuse and sediment used to fill in and level the area for the construction of the
next floor. The uppermost floor in each unit was usually almost directly beneath post-
abandonment wall fall and sediment deposited by wind and water (see Chapter 4 for further
excavation details). Between-floor fill, then, would represent activities that took place in the
general area and provide a coarse-grained resolution on activity areas.
Better resolution might be obtained by looking at relatively immobile features. Features
like banquetas, hearths, and storage pits were constructed by household residents in particular
spaces, and directly relate to the function of those spaces. Thus the placement, content, and
function of features associated with living floors in Pedregal houses are useful in reconstructing
the spatial organization of household activities.
A picture of this domestic organization can be gained by discussing some examples of
different contexts. Level 8 (Floor 3) of Unit 1 likely provides an example of a kitchen. Low,
plastered banquetas line the walls. Household residents would have sat or reclined on these
benches while they conversed, worked, and relaxed in the house. A large, circular hearth lies
near the center of the room, with stones placed near the edge perhaps to support cooking
283
vessels near the fire. The small scale of the room means that the hearth would be easy to reach
from most parts of the room. The floor was plastered and repaired, and would have formed a
surface for food preparation, consumption, and other household activities, but pits were also
dug into the floor for storage and ultimately for ritual offerings and trash disposal. While the
stone walls of this room probably did not extend all the way to the roof, it is likely that quincha
walls would have hidden activities that took place here from people outside or in other rooms.
The room would have been a dark, smoky space where multiple activities likely took place in
close proximity.
A different kind of household space is represented by Levels 9 and 10 of Unit 5, which
contained 32 features carved into the sterile subsoil. These features probably supported the
round bases of storage vessels. As other architectural features, such as banquetas or hearths,
were found in this area, it probably represents a space dedicated to storage. This space was in
use before the walls visible on the surface were constructed and may have been unwalled or
unroofed. Concentrations of cuy coprolites were encountered on this surface, which suggests
this space may also have been used to house animals for later consumption.
9.1.1.1 Multivariate analyses of floor and feature assemblages
To move beyond simply describing the layout of different contexts to tease out the function and
organization of different spaces, I wanted to look for associations between multiple artifactual
and architectural variables. Multivariate analyses such as multidimensional scaling and cluster
analysis are one way to explore such associations. Both of these methods measure how similar
or distant individual cases are based on a set of selected variables. In order to examine the
spatial organization of different activities in different spaces, each floor (with associated
features) was considered as an individual case. Fill and surface assemblages from each unit
284
were also included as cases. By looking at similarities and differences between each floor
context, I tried to uncover similarities and differences in the activities carried out in these
spaces.
Ten variables were selected for this analysis: the presence of spindle whorls, the ratios
of maize, cotton, and carbon to total plant parts, the ratio of domestic to wild plants, the ratio of
fish to mammal NISP, the ratios of ollas and serving vessels to total diagnostic sherds, the ratio
of Polineces to Donax, and the number of animal coprolites per liter excavated. These variables
were chosen on the basis of previous analyses that showed them to be particularly important
dimensions of variability. All of these variables were standardized either as ratios or as densities
to account for the different excavated volumes and overall artifact densities across different
contexts. A matrix of similarity coefficients was calculated using SIMS (a DOS program written
for this purpose) and then multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were performed using
SYSTAT. From the multidimensional scaling analysis, coordinates in three dimensions were
graphed and examined.
The results of this analysis show some clear patterns, but do not identify clearly distinct
artifact assemblages in different kinds of spaces. In the cluster analysis, the most closely related
floors were those that were relatively clean or floors of which only a small fragment had been
preserved. In other words, the main distinction revealed by cluster analysis was between
contexts with many artifacts (and thus more different kinds of artifacts) and contexts with few or
no artifacts.
Multidimensional scaling analysis revealed that some contexts clustered together. In
Figure 9.1, the three contexts from which spindle whorls were recovered form a clear group.
However, as might be expected if these contexts were loci of textile processing and production,
the contexts in this group do not also contain a high ratio of cotton to total plant parts (Figure
285
9.2). Instead, the highest concentration of cotton parts as a ratio of total plant parts is in the
large storage feature in Unit 6. This lack of spatial overlap between processing debris (cotton
parts) and spindle whorls could indicate that cotton processing and spinning were spatially
separated in Pedregal households. However, it could also relate to differences in discard
trajectories between cotton parts, which may have been discarded along with other crop
byproducts, and spindle whorls, which were likely conserved until they were broken or lost.
Figure 9.1. Scatterplot showing presence/absence of spindle whorls
286
Figure 9.2. Scatterplot showing total cotton parts
Figure 9.3. Scatterplot showing division of contexts by olla proportion
287
Floors from early and late LIP occupations were different enough to group along two
separate axes, as Figure 9.3 shows. One major difference is in the ratio of ollas to total sherds.
In general, later contexts have higher ratios, indicating that ollas dominated the assemblage to a
greater extent in these later floors and features. This difference was not significant in the overall
comparison of ceramic assemblages (see Chapter 7) but does appear to be one of the factors
that distinguished this set of early and late contexts.
In sum, these clusters do not seem to represent functionally related spaces. Contexts
with hearths did not uniformly group together, which would have indicated a standardized
kitchen assemblage, nor did contexts with spindle whorls, high cotton concentrations, and other
craft debris. Even a fine-grained, multivariate approach does not reveal tightly defined activity
areas or spaces in which some activities, but not others, took place. This result could be related
to the nature of deposition at the site; floors were swept clean, while most artifacts were found in
refuse pits or fill levels. Trash pits and fill contexts are both likely to be palimpsests of multiple
household activities accumulated over time. Overall, the data at Pedregal do not allow for easy
interpretations of intra-household use of space.
9.1.2 Use of space and social differentiation within the community
Within the Pedregal community, use of space, activities, and choices about cuisine might have
varied among the different LIP households. This variability can be approached by comparing
areas in Sector A. In addition, the kinds of activities that took place on and in front of the
mounds in Sector B could have been differed from the activities that were carried out in and
around households in Sector A. These differences can be identified by comparing assemblages
between sectors.
288
9.1.2.1 Differences among Sector A households
Because entire household units were not exposed, it was not feasible to compare floor plans
and access patterns among households at Pedregal. Instead, I investigated differences in
activities, wealth, or access to particular goods among Pedregal households by comparing the
associated artifact assemblages. Since households were sampled rather than fully excavated,
differences in artifact assemblages might reflect differences in the function of the particular
spaces that happened to have been excavated within each household. However, by combining
data from the two large and two small units placed within each household, I can attempt to
compensate for some of this sampling bias. In order to be confident that my sample from each
household was truly representative I would ideally have excavated many more units in each
household (see Drennan 1996 for a discussion of sample size and confidence).
Most artifacts were recovered from between-floor fill and other refuse deposits, which
are unlikely to represent only the activities that took place in the area excavated. Instead, fill and
refuse were probably drawn from the generalized household area, and thus likely represent the
wider set of activities that took place within the vicinity of the household. Still, some bias toward
the particular functions of the areas excavated probably remains, and I will discuss the possible
interpretations of the differences in particular artifact assemblages below.
Each household sample is the product of broadly similar formation processes, and the
overall outline of botanical, faunal, ceramic, and other artifact assemblages is similar in the
households in Areas 2, 4, and 6. However, there are several meaningful differences in artifact
proportions that suggest important differences in the consumption activities of household
members. In Area 6, cotton made up a significantly greater proportion of the botanical
assemblage as compared to botanical assemblages from Areas 2 and 4 (χ2=407.57, df=2,
289
p<.0005)), which suggests that the household in Area 6 was more heavily involved in cotton
processing and textile production.
Needles and spindle whorls, artifacts related to textile production, were also more
common in Area 6, though small sample sizes make comparisons somewhat suspect (Table
9.1). Three copper needles were found in Area 2 and three in Area 6; standardized by
excavated volume and by total sherd count, needles were more common in Area 6. Both the
raw count and the density of spindle whorls were higher in Area 6 than in Area 2. Whorls from
Area 6 were on average larger and heavier than those from Area 2; differences in whorl weight
and diameter were marginally significant. However, small whorls were also found in Area 6 as
well, so the overall range of whorl size and weight was greater in Area 6 than in Area 2 (Table
9.1), which might indicate that a wider range of desired products was being produced in Area 6.
Thus several different lines of evidence, both botanical and artifactual, suggest that textile
production might have been centered in the household in Area 6.
Table 9.1. Needles and spindle whorls by area in Sector A
Area 2 Area 6
n 3 3
Needles needles/sherd weight (kg.) 0.0066 0.0163
needles/excavated volume
(L.) 0.0004 0.0006
n 3 5
whorls/sherd weight (kg.) 0.0659 0.2716
whorls/excavated volume
(L.) 0.0004 0.001
mean whorl weight (g.) 1.367 3.21
Spindle
range of whorl weights (g.) 1.1-1.8 1.6-4.4
whorls
t-test on weight t=2.306, p=0.061
mean whorl diameter (cm.) 1.2 1.68
t-test on diameter t=2.332, p=0.058
range of whorl diameters
(cm.) 1.14-1.31 1.24-2.11
290
Table 9.2. Evidence for food processing and preparation by area in Sector A
Measure Area 2 Area 4 Area 6

ollas as proportion of total
ceramic assemblage 46.07±5.2* 34.68±8.7 33.13±4.1
botanical diversity (1=most
diverse) 0.834 0.793 0.787
maize as proportion of total
plant assemblage 18.35±1.8 17.06±2.5 9.21±1.6
aji as proportion of total plant
assemblage 16.33±1.7 4.06±1.3 4.4±1.1
ratio of carbon count to
botanical part count 1.25 0.89 0.76
burnt elements as proportion of
total NISP 12.26±3.9 9.52±4.7 6.13±2.6
*all confidence intervals at 95%
The artifact assemblage from Area 2, on the other hand, is more indicative of activities of
food processing and preparation (Table 9.2). Area 2 had a higher proportion of olla sherds than
Area 4 or Area 6; this difference is significant at a 95% confidence level. Plates, conversely,
made up a significantly lower percentage of the assemblage in Area 2 as compared to Area 6.
This difference suggests a focus on food preparation as opposed to serving and consumption.
The botanical assemblage in Area 2 is high in maize and other cultivated species,
especially ají peppers, but low in tree fruits as compared to other areas in Sector A (Table 9.2).
Areas in which food processing and food preparation commonly took place might also be
expected to have remains of more different kinds of plants (and other foods) than areas where
cooking was less common. The high diversity of the botanical assemblage in Area 2, as
measured by Simpson’s diversity index, could indicate a focus on food processing and
preparation (Table 9.2). High diversity indices for all three areas, however, show that the
291
botanical assemblage is generally diverse, and it is difficult to attach confidence intervals to
Simpson’s diversity index.
During processing and cooking, food often falls into the hearth accidentally, byproducts
are tossed into the fire for disposal, and wood and other plant materials are burnt as fuel. We
would expect food preparation areas to generate refuse with a greater proportion of burnt bone
and plant material than areas where other activities took place. The ratio of carbonized wood
and cane to other botanical parts was higher in Area 2 than the other areas in Sector A (Table
9.2). Area 2 also had a higher overall percentage of burnt or calcined faunal elements than
Areas 4 or 6. This evidence suggests that food and other materials were more likely to be
exposed to burning in Area 2. Overall, the Area 2 assemblage is indicative of activities related to
food preparation.
Other differences between the households in Areas 2, 4, and 6 are less reflective of
activity differences, but rather may relate to different choices related to food and resource
exploitation. Fish made up a significantly greater proportion of the overall faunal assemblage in
Area 2 than in Area 6, while Area 6 had higher proportions of camelid and cuy (Figure 9.4). The
Area 4 faunal assemblage was smaller than that of the other areas, so error ranges attached to
the sample percent are wider, but the Area 4 faunal assemblage was similar to Area 2 in terms
of terrestrial mammals and closer to Area 6 in proportion of fish (Figure 9.4). The shellfish
assemblage also differed among households. As I discussed in Chapter 6, different species of
shellfish consumed by Pedregal residents were gathered from either rocky or sandy shore
habitats. In Area 6, sandy shore species like Donax obesulus and Polinices uber were
preferred, while in Area 2 the proportion of the assemblage made up by rocky shore species like
Prisogaster niger and members of the Thais genus was significantly greater than in other areas
(Figure 9.5). Land snails, Scutalus proteus, were similarly uncommon in all households.
292
Figure 9.4. Faunal assemblage proportions by area in Sector A
293
Figure 9.5. Shellfish habitat by area in Sector A
294
Such differences in the faunal assemblage, particularly the high proportion of camelid in
Area 6, might be attributed to differences in wealth or status between households. In the Andes,
access to camelid meat was often restricted along lines of status or class; Gumerman (1991,
2002) has found that higher class residents of Pacatnamú had preferential access to camelid
meat as compared to lower class households. Though the architecture in Area 6 was built with
the same methods and materials as other households, it seems impressionistically to be better-
constructed (C. Mackey, personal communication, 2006) which might also suggest that Area 6
represents the household of a somewhat higher status family.
Other lines of evidence, however, failed to show the wealth distinctions seen at
Pacatnamú (Table 9.3). In addition to camelid meat, another culinary marker of high status
households noted at Pacatnamú was preferential access to or use of ají peppers and peanuts
(Gumerman 1991). Peanuts constituted a very small percent of Area 4 and 6 assemblages (less
than 0.1% of the total plant parts) and were absent in Area 2. Ají, however, was much more
common in Area 2 than in either Area 4 or 6 (Table 9.2). Other markers of wealth, such as
access to metal or fine ceramics, were not present in higher proportions in Area 6 as compared
to the other areas. Metal objects like needles, tweezers, and thin plates or laminas were present
in similarly low proportions as compared to total sherd count in Areas 2 and 6, and were even
less common in Area 4 (Table 9.3). No other lines of evidence thus support the differences in
wealth that might be reflected in the faunal assemblage.
Table 9.3. Wealth items by area in Sector A
Measure Area 2 Area 4 Area 6

fineware as proportion of total 2.17±1.5* 4.03±3.6 0.6±.7
ceramic assemblage
metal objects/100 sherds 0.024 0.011 0.022
camelid as proportion of total 12.45±2.4 16.8±4.6 25.75±2.9
faunal NISP
*all confidence intervals at 95%
295
The preference for camelid and sandy shore shellfish in Area 6 as opposed to a focus on
fish and the selection of more shellfish from rocky shores might reflect the different choices
each family made about what foods to eat or where and how to invest energy in obtaining food.
Patterns of resource procurement and culinary practice were probably not precisely the same
within each household even in a small community like Pedregal, though these differences do
not necessarily reflect differences in access to high-status goods or differences in economic
orientation (e.g. specialist households).
9.1.2.2 Spatial patterning at the community level
In Sector A, agglutinated room compounds and cemeteries formed a rough semicircle around a
central open area. To the north, the compounds were separated from the two low platforms by
another open area and cemetery, while beyond the platforms walls enclosed a rectangular area
that also seems to have been open (see Chapter 4 for excavation details). Pedregal residents
carried out different kinds of activities in open external spaces, around raised platforms, and in
enclosed, roofed spaces within the community, though clearly some overlap in activities and
interactions was possible.
I have already discussed some evidence for spatial patterning of particular activities at
the community level. In Chapter 8, I presented evidence that community-wide rituals involving
feasting took place in Sector B. High-quality camelid elements were preferentially consumed (or
at least discarded) in Sector B, and serving jars were also more common here than in Sector A,
while maize processing and perhaps chicha preparation were centered in Sector A.
Other differences between sectors are less clearly related to feasting. The shellfish
assemblage in Sector B was dominated by the gastropod Polinices uber, while Donax obseulus
was significantly less common than in Sector A (Figure 9.6). Tree fruits made up a significantly
296
greater proportion of the botanical assemblage in Sector B (68.95%) as compared to Sector A
(46.59%); this difference is very significant (χ2=635.31, df=2, p<.005). Other botanical
categories, however, contributed relatively equally to both assemblages. It is possible that tree
fruits such as guanábana and gastropods were foods that were appropriate for consumption at
feasts, though I have no ethnographic or ethnohistoric evidence to support this proposition. It is
also possible that deposits in Sector B represent the remains of selected or limited activities,
perhaps seasonal or individual events, which might not be expected to show the variety of daily
household activities that contributed to the refuse from Sector A. These differences between
overall Sector A and Sector B assemblages are evidence that the materials used as platform fill
and deposited around the platforms were distinct from those disposed of in and around houses
in Sector A.
Figure 9.6. Donax and Polinices proportions by sector
297
As I discussed in Chapter 8, the activities that took place on and around the platform
mounds in Sector B were not visually or architecturally separated from the households of Sector
A. This implies that they were shared by all community members rather than restricted to certain
participants. In the open area between Sector B platforms and Sector A households, refuse
related to textile production and ceramic sherds were discarded. Excavations recovered
concentrations of ceramics and one large pit filled with dense botanical material, including
cotton and a broken spindle. This area could represent an area of communal use for activities
like textile production and an area suitable for the disposal of refuse related to these activities.
The open area in Sector B and the open area between households in Sector A (Area 7)
may have had similar uses. Only one test pit (PP-30) was placed in Area 7. No floors or living
surfaces were found, though linear features carved into the sterile subsoil suggested that
quincha walls divided this space at one point. Most of the shallow stratigraphy in this unit was
composed of dumping episodes and ashy refuse. Thus like the open area in Sector B, this area
was used for multiple activities including trash disposal and possibly trash burning.
9.1.3 Landscape, space, and resources in the lower valley
I have already discussed the social and economic resources in the Jequetepeque in previous
chapters. Pedregal residents exploited plants and animals in multiple ecological niches,
including freshwater river, estuary, sandy and rocky shores, deep ocean waters, dry quebradas,
rocky hillsides, irrigated fields, and field and canal margins. Figure 9.7 is a graphical
representation of how different species were distributed across these diverse niches.
Though Pedregal residents exploited different ecological niches, they did not need to
move great distances across the landscape to do so. Pedregal is located slightly over one km
298
from the Jequetepeque River, and fields on the river bottom could be easily reached by climbing
down one of the numerous quebradas that break up the high escarpment on which the village is
located. The large field systems to the east begin 1.5 km from the village and would also have
been easily accessible on foot. The ocean is slightly over nine km from Pedregal, an easy walk
along the relatively flat foot of the escarpment, and so fish and shellfish would have been easily
accessible to Pedregal residents.
The distribution of resources across the lower valley was patchy, concentrated in
irrigated fields and on the coastline, but resources would have been rich and abundant within
these patches. Even within the system of irrigated fields, microclimatic variations affected
productivity. For example, the shadow of Cerro Faclo creates a distinct microclimate around the
site of Farfán. The local population today recognizes that Farfán receives slightly more moisture
than the surrounding area and is favorable for farming. Carol Mackey (personal communication)
has suggested that Farfán may have been located to take advantage of these favorable
conditions.
The evidence for resource procurement that I discuss in Chapter 6 points to some
changes through time in the way Pedregal residents utilized the natural landscape. In the early
LIP, fish made up a significantly greater proportion of the faunal assemblage than in the late
LIP, while in the late LIP domestic animals like camelid and cuy dominated the assemblage. In
reflecting a change in procurement strategies, this data also suggests a change in how
Pedregal residents interacted with the natural landscape. Focus shifted from a coastal resource,
reached through an almost 20 km round trip walk to the coast, to domesticated animals raised in
the village. From the early to the late LIP, wild plants became less prominent in the botanical
assemblage as compared to domesticated species. This change also reflects a shift in focus
from resources that were foraged outside the village to resources that were raised nearby. In
299
effect, though the catchment area did not necessarily decrease in size in the late LIP, a stronger
focus was placed on resources grown or raised near the village.
Figure 9.7. Resources and ecosystems exploited by Pedregal residents
9.1.3.1 The regional social and political setting
As Dillehay (2001:270; see also Dillehay and Kolata 2004 and Dillehay et al. 2004) points out,
occupation of high-productivity zones in the Jequetepeque and Zaña Valleys was uneven during
the Moche period. Instead of occupying the most productive land, the rural population clumped
together in different parts of the valley. Temporary abandonment and subsequent reoccupation
of villages was also common during this period. Dillehay (2001:270-271) suggests that this
pattern may have been due largely to social interactions between villages and political factors at
300
valley and village level. In the Chimú period, Dillehay and Kolata (2004:4329) argue, Chimú
administrators “strategically aggregated populations, restricted residential mobility, and linked
urban residents directly to costly integrated agricultural landscapes.” In both cases, the
distribution of rural villages across the lower valley landscape was shaped by local political
dynamics and social relations.
Less than one km west of Pedregal, and clearly visible from Sector A, lies an LIP site
consisting of a rectangular stone enclosure and a scatter of sherds, household artifacts, and
looted domestic storage features. Low mounds at nearby LIP sites to the east are also visible
from Pedregal. The string of small LIP communities along the Pampa de Faclo escarpment
drew on a shared architectural canon, including rectangular stone enclosures, low adobe and fill
mounds, and agglutinated residential compounds, though as Swenson (2004) points out,
individual variations on this shared canon were common across the valley. Utilitarian ceramic
styles were also widely shared by Pampa de Faclo communities and across the lower valley as
a whole. Individual villages were thus integrated socially and culturally within the larger Pampa
de Faclo region, though I have no evidence for the nature of economic ties between Pedregal,
as a relatively economically autonomous village, and nearby communities. Further work at other
small lower valley sites would help reconstruct political, economic, and social variation between
rural communities and understand the wider social landscape through which Pedregal residents
moved.
301
9.2 VARIATION THROUGH TIME
Temporal variation can be directional, in the sense of changing practices and priorities through
time, but also cyclical, in the sense of daily tasks or seasonal rounds. Seasonality has been a
strong component of archaeological studies of mobile, foraging societies, many of which move
between different ecological zones depending on the seasonal availability of resources. The
seasonal round shapes the distribution across the landscape of different kinds of settlements
(from hunting camps to sites of large seasonal congregations). Less attention has been paid to
seasonality in sedentary societies, partly because residential mobility is no longer tied to the
seasonal flux of resources. In their study of domestic culinary practice at Çatalhoyuk, Atalay and
Hastorf (2006) point out that the resource palette varied not only across the landscape but also
by season, and so the suite of food processing and preparation activities carried out in and
around households changed throughout the year.
This dissertation is largely concerned with questions about change (and continuity)
through time. However, Pedregal residents likely felt temporal variation most acutely along
cycles of varying lengths, from the sequence of daily activities to seasonal shifts from wet to dry
months. In many agricultural societies, including in the Andes, the seasonal cycle of planting,
tending, and harvesting crops shapes not only household activity patterns, but often also the
ritual calendar. Table 9.4 provides an overview of relevant temporal intervals, from daily to multi-
year cycles. The activities associated with these different cycles are inferred based on the
evidence from Pedregal I presented in preceding chapters as well as ethnohistoric and
ethnographic accounts of household life in the coastal Andes. The table organizes tasks into
broad areas, though these divisions are somewhat arbitrary and tasks would have overlapped
302
Table 9.4. Reconstruction of temporal cycles at Pedregal
Interval
Multiyear/
Area Daily Weekly/monthly Seasonally/annually decadal
planting/harvesting field/canal
agriculture work in fields work in fields crops construction
canal maintenance
climatic
food opportunistic wild birth of young cycles/El Niño
procurement plant gathering birth of young cuy camelids events
fishing/ gathering camelid/dog
shellfish cuy butchering butchering
food processing food processing for
household for meal storage and processing crops for
work preparation consumption storage
maize grinding chicha preparation
sweeping floors cleaning the hearth
washing clothes, burning/burying
kitchen tools refuse
gathering water,
fuel, fodder
childcare birth of children
cooking special
cooking meals (special
everyday meals ingredients/
(stews) preparations)
informal family formal celebratory
consumption consumption (feasts)
manufacture of
lithic/ bone/wood
production spinning tools; textiles ceramic production
agricultural/seasonal lifecycle
ritual household offerings celebrations celebrations
burial of
community
burial of community member/elite in
member in cemetery platform
platform construction of
platform reconstruction/ compounds/
architecture maintenance renewal platforms
house renewal
(replastering, house
house maintenance repairing quincha) construction
political changes in elite
maneuvering in the tribute to elites at leadership in the
political community centers valley
303
(food procurement and agricultural work could have taken place simultaneously, for example,
and been accompanied by ritual practice or political interactions).
9.2.1 Daily and weekly rhythms
Many of the household tasks I discussed in Chapter 7 would have been repeated each day or
every several days. Tasks like procuring water and fuel, feeding animals and children, and
cooking daily meals of stew were an essential part of each day and probably varied little in form
or content over the course of years or even decades. Many accounts of more recent Andean
household life stress that families, and particularly women, are constantly multitasking and
never idle (Weismantel 1988). Activities related to production, such as work in fields, spinning,
food procurement activities like foraging or fishing, and processing of food for consumption or
storage, were probably also accomplished on a daily or near-daily basis, while other activities
such as maintaining houses and platforms or making household offerings may have been
repeated over longer intervals. The frequency and timing of these activities would have
depended on each family’s needs as well as the priorities of each different point in the
agricultural cycle.
9.2.2 Seasonal cycles
Given Pedregal’s focus on agriculture, much time would have been devoted to work in the
fields. However, the nature of this work and its intensity would have varied greatly by season.
Temperature and water availability fluctuate between wet and dry seasons on the coast. Though
water is available year-round from the Jequetepeque River, it is less plentiful between the
304
months of May to November. Today, farmers harvest two crops each year, a rice crop planted
during the wet season, to be harvested in May and June, and a corn crop planted during the dry
season and harvested from October to November. It is unclear how farmers would have
prioritized different prehispanic crops between wet and dry seasons, but the presence of
abundant cotton pollen in Faclo field systems (Weir and Eling 1986) suggests that cotton, along
with maize, was a central crop in the seasonal cycle.
It is also unclear how prehispanic farmers would have organized crop and fallow
rotations; much of the ethnography dealing with agricultural practices is focused on the
highlands. In addition to using leguminous algarrobo as fertilizer (Hayashida 2006), farmers may
have rotated crops of nitrogen-fixing beans with corn, cotton, and other crops. Irrigation canals
would also have been maintained seasonally, depending on water flow and crop requirements.
In the highlands today, celebrations mark seasonal events such as communal canal
maintenance and harvests. The seasonality of agricultural work (both work in the fields and crop
processing), like the daily rhythms of household tasks, would likely have formed the background
against which other household and community activities were organized, while seasonal
fluctuations in resource availability would have created variation in daily meals throughout the
year. However, I recovered no evidence bearing on the specific seasonal differences between
meals. It is interesting to note that recent isotopic analysis of hair and bone collagen samples
from the nearby site of Pacatnamú show fluctuations more easily attributable to movement
between different environments, such as coast and highlands, than to regular, seasonal
variation in resource consumption (White et al. 2009).
Evidence from Pedregal suggests the seasonal nature of at least one community
activity. As I discussed in Chapter 8, the two low platforms at Pedregal were constructed with
layers of loose fill alternating with layers of cornstalks, which may have served to stabilize the
305
loose fill. The discontinuous nature of different fill layers suggests that platforms were not
constructed in one or two large events but rather as a series of smaller events. The presence of
thin layers of cornstalks points to the seasonal construction or maintenance of the platforms.
Ethnographic and archaeological evidence suggests that cobs would have been separated from
stalks in the field (see Chapter 7 for further discussion). After the cobs were removed, stalks
could be used as fodder, burnt to return nutrients to fields, or used in house or platform
construction. If there were two harvests each year, then construction must have been timed to
occur after the harvest. The repetition of layers of fill and layers of cornstalks in the platforms is
not frequent enough to point to annual platform renewal. However, it does suggest that there
was a seasonal component to platform construction and renewal (and perhaps to household
construction and renewal, if cornstalks were included in the quincha walls of houses), and that
such activities could have been associated with seasonal or annual maize harvests.
9.2.3 Longer cycles
ENSO events were among the longer cycles that would have affected Pedregal residents.
ENSO events would have affected the availability of some resources while at the same time
creating new opportunities for resource exploitation. Dillehay and Kolata (2004) believe that
ENSO events may have spurred the temporary abandonment of communities in the
Jequetepeque and Zaña Valleys. Stratigraphic cuts at a number of lower valley sites revealed
occupational levels separated by clean, water-deposited sediments (Dillehay and Kolata 2004).
While ENSO-related destruction did not permanently disrupt lower valley society, then, it could
have contributed to cycles of occupation and abandonment in some areas. In Chapter 6, I
discussed differences in fish species from Moche and LIP deposits at Pedregal as evidence for
306
multidecadal fluctuations in Pacific Ocean ecosystems. Longer environmental cycles such as
this fluctuation, or longer-term warming or cooling trends, would likely have been less
perceptible or predictable to Pedregal residents than the shorter ENSO cycle, but would also
have shaped cuisine and household work in the village. Political changes in the valley could
also have occurred over a longer interval, but evidence from Pedregal does not speak to
sociopolitical cycles at the valley scale.
9.3 CONCLUSIONS: SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL ORGANIZATION
Evidence from Pedregal did not allow for the identification of clear activities areas or the spatial
organization of daily household tasks. However, comparison of the three household units
sampled in depth showed some variation in the activities that took place in these households.
Area 2 contained stronger evidence for activities associated with food preparation, while textile
production may have been a stronger focus in Area 6 than in the other areas sampled. I also
found that the household in Area 6 consumed proportionally more camelid than the other
households sampled. This difference in consumption could be linked to differences in wealth or
status among Pedregal households, but differences were limited in comparison to the kinds of
wealth distinctions apparently at valley centers like Pacatnamú. Finally, I identified clear
differences in the kinds of activities that took place in domestic compounds in Sector A and in
open public areas around the platforms in Sector B. I found only limited evidence for temporal
variation in the organization of different household and community tasks at Pedregal. On the
coast, seasonal variations are not as strongly felt as in the adjacent highlands. Even though
307
domestic activities at Pedregal were undoubtedly organized around daily and seasonal
agricultural cycles, I found little empirical evidence with which to reconstruct this variation.
308
10.0 CHIMÚ EXPANSION, DOMESTIC ECONOMY, AND CUISINE
This dissertation investigates change and continuity in domestic economies at Pedregal, a rural
agricultural village in the Jequetepeque Valley, as the valley was incorporated into the
expansive Chimú empire. Pedregal is a 5 ha multicomponent site located on the north bank of
the lower Jequetepeque River, between the Late Intermediate Period valley centers of
Pacatnamú and Farfán. Pedregal was first occupied during the Moche period; however, the
focus of the present project is the LIP residential occupation, which consisted of five compounds
of irregular, rectangular, agglutinated rooms. To the north of this residential sector was the LIP
public sector, which included two low platform mounds, a cemetery, and a large rectangular
compound.
Excavations focused on recovering a diachronic sample from three households,
supplemented by smaller test excavations in other sectors of the site. In total, approximately
85m2 and 44,100 L were excavated. The relatively small area excavated did not allow for a
detailed reconstruction of intrahousehold spatial differentiation. However, in each household
sampled, two LIP occupations were clearly defined stratigraphically, allowing me to chart
change through time in cuisine and domestic economy at Pedregal.
309
10.1 QUESTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS
The questions that originally structured research at Pedregal (see Chapter 3) relate to specific
household-level dynamics that I expected to change in a situation of conquest and control.
Some of these expectations were based on current understandings of the intentions and
strategies of the conquering Chimú state, others on current constructs of domestic economy. My
study, therefore, focused on the direct and indirect responses of Pedregal families to the
potential demands of state administrators but also in the context of the opportunities available in
a new political and economic landscape. In this section, I highlight the evidence for household
continuity and change presented in previous chapters, and address how these changes can be
related to processes and shifts at larger scales.
10.1.1 Agricultural production
The clearest changes at Pedregal occurred in the realm of agricultural production. The first
question I asked in Chapter 1 was whether agricultural production, specifically maize
production, intensified under Chimú rule. I expected, based on cases like the Inka conquest of
the Mantaro Valley, that incorporation into the larger Chimú state would include increased
tribute demands on the population. Since Pedregal was heavily involved in agricultural
production, I expected to see evidence for increased production and processing of crops like
maize in the later LIP.
The evidence from Pedregal suggests that agricultural production, and specifically the
production of maize and cotton, increased during the late LIP occupation. While it is difficult to
discuss the output of these products in absolute terms, maize cobs and kernels and cotton
310
remains made up significantly greater proportions of the total botanical assemblage in the late
LIP as compared to the early LIP. In general, domesticated plants received a significantly
greater emphasis in the later period as compared to wild plants.
Though production of maize and cotton intensified, there is no evidence for an increased
focus on secondary products such as chicha or cloth. If I had found more cobs as compared to
kernels through time, for example, this might indicate that proportionally more kernels were
being exported or used to make chicha. However, the cob-to-kernel ratio does not change
through time at Pedregal, arguing against changes in intensity or organization of maize
processing. In the late LIP, maize production increased, but the balance of processing vs.
consumption did not change. This evidence is consistent with a scenario in which Pedregal
residents were supplying local elites, perhaps at Pacatnamú, with agricultural goods even
before Chimú arrival.
Large tinajas, which would have been used to ferment and store chicha, did not become
more common in the late LIP ceramic assemblage, which also suggests that chicha production
remained relatively constant. The nature of the excavations made it difficult to measure whether
overall storage capacity, in the form of storerooms or storage pits, increased or decreased
through time and thus to determine whether more maize and other products would have been
stored at the site in the early or late LIP. Finally, though groundstone tools were only
infrequently recovered from the site in general, tools like batanes and manos did not become
more common in the late LIP. Nor did tools related to textile production such as spindle whorls,
needles, and loom parts become more common through time, which suggests that greater focus
was not placed on spinning or weaving in the LIP.
Maize and cotton, in this reconstruction, are both valuable and storable products, and
could have been extracted from villages like Pedregal as bulk staples to be stored and further
311
processed elsewhere. However, the evidence from Pedregal does not speak directly to the
wider regional movement of maize and cotton. The presence of storerooms in Chimú and
Chimú-Inka compounds and the burials of a group of elite Chimú-Inka women involved in
spinning and weaving at the nearby regional center of Farfán (Mackey and Jáuregui 2001)
suggests that some of this processing and storage could have taken place there, though
storage capacity at Farfán is much less than that of Chan Chan, or for that matter, of Inka
provincial storage systems in general. Unfortunately, there is no comparable cob-to-kernel ratio
data for Farfán to support the argument that Farfán was receiving and storing maize extracted
from rural communities like Pedregal. In sum, based on the evidence from Pedregal, I argue
that residents processed maize and cotton into chicha and textiles for domestic consumption
and probably also exported some of their surplus maize to valley centers like Pacatnamú and
Farfán during both early and late LIP occupations. However, since proportions of both maize
and cotton increased from the early to late LIP occupations, it is likely that the production of
these agricultural products, and related primary processing activities, intensified during the LIP.
10.1.2 Household scheduling priorities and the organization of domestic labor
If the intensity of chicha preparation and textile manufacture did not increase in Pedregal
households, did other aspects of household production or organization change as households
were incorporated into new regional economic systems? Especially given the evidence for an
increased focus on agricultural products, and specifically maize and cotton, I suspected that the
scheduling of other household activities might have been reorganized in response to the greater
farming and processing workload. Such reorganization had the potential to impact cuisine and
labor deployment within the household, as an indirect impact of conquest and regional change.
312
As I discussed above, focus on domesticated plants increased compared to wild
species; families likely spent more time cultivating and harvesting crops as opposed to foraging
for wild species. A similar pattern emerged from the faunal data. The consumption of
domesticated animals such as camelid and cuy increased through time compared to fish
consumption in Pedregal households. Because no net fragments or net weights were recovered
from Pedregal households, it is unclear whether Pedregal residents would have been involved
directly in fishing at the coast, eight km away, or whether they would have been supplied with
fish through the redistributive or exchange systems that have been posited for the prehispanic
north coast. However, the shift in focus away from wild plant and animal resources toward
animal husbandry and agriculture indicates a change in how Pedregal residents exploited
different ecosystems and likely in how they would have scheduled food procurement.
Accompanying this shift toward raising food and animals as opposed to foraging and
fishing was a shift toward more labor-intensive foods. Tree fruits like guanábana, avocado, and
guava decreased proportionally in the LIP, and were replaced by crops like maize. Tree fruits
are perennial, so they require less agricultural labor than annually planted crops like maize.
They also require minimal processing and are not easily stored. Maize, on the other hand,
requires more time-consuming cultivation and processing, both in the field and in the house.
Cotton, another crop that received greater focus in the late LIP, is also labor-intensive and time-
consuming to process. Changes in the botanical assemblage thus relate to an increasing focus
on storable but labor-intensive products.
In some parts of the world, such as Aztec Mexico (Brumfield 1991), the US Southwest
(Crown 2000), and the US Southeast (Sassaman 1999), an increase in the intensity of some
kinds of household labor resulted in a shift toward less labor-intensive cooking methods and
changes in cuisine. This does not seem to be the case at Pedregal. The set of ceramic vessels
313
used to cook meals at Pedregal did not change appreciably in functional terms through the LIP.
No new culinary methods were introduced, nor does the assemblage reveal a shift toward less
labor intensive cooking techniques. One way to save labor and fuel is to cook larger meals at
once, and then serve leftovers at subsequent meals. Larger meals might also signal changes in
family size, as families had more children or incorporated more members of the extended family
in order to increase the labor pool. However, mean vessel size at Pedregal did not increase,
suggesting that cooks were preparing and serving similar amounts of food for meals in the early
and late LIP.
It seems, then, that shifts in labor patterns and household scheduling around food
procurement and processing did not impact the shape of daily meals at Pedregal. Nor did I find
evidence that these shifts affected other activities such as textile production, since the density of
tools like spindle whorls did not change. It is more difficult to assess the extent of changes in the
spatial organization of activities within and around houses. In Chapter 9, I discussed the
difficulties related to reconstructing the spatial organization of particular activities at the site,
especially given the limited sample of early LIP architecture. Further excavations directed
toward opening large areas of early and late floors will be necessary to fully understand the
ways in which changes in labor and food procurement might have affected the organization of
space at Pedregal.
10.1.3 Political organization, feasting and chicha production
The Mantaro Valley case suggests that local-level political competition is sometimes overridden
by a conquering state, and local political activities redirected toward interactions with the state.
314
In the case of Pedregal, I expected to see the organization of local political activities shift after
Chimú arrival; specifically, I expected the locus or scale of feasting to change.
Faunal and ceramic evidence suggests that feasting at Pedregal took place around the
platforms in Sector B. These platforms were most likely constructed during the Late
Lambayeque period, and were used, and possibly remodeled, through the Chimú period.
Though they were likely a focus of community ritual and political feasting, throughout the LIP
sequence, the platforms seem to have been used for a new purpose during the Chimú period.
At least one elite individual with relatively rich grave goods, including blackware bottles with
typically Chimú motifs, was interred in Platform 2. This looted burial implies that at least some
Pedregal residents had access to Chimú fineware late in the village’s occupation. The interment
of one or more individuals with Chimú ceramics also may signal a shift in how public space at
the site was used in the Chimú period.
Evidence from Sector A, however, hints at a reorganization of feasting activities through
time. Serving vessels represented a significantly smaller proportion of the total ceramic
assemblage in the late LIP as compared to the early LIP. Even though plates, a typical form in
Late Chimú assemblages from the Moche Valley, increased relative to other forms in the late
LIP, serving vessels in general were less common in household assemblages. The difference is
not very strong, but I believe it is enough to support the suggestion that feasting in households
had become slightly less important by the late LIP.
It is unclear whether feasting moved to public spaces within the community or to state
installations at sites like Farfán. The proportion of household ceramic assemblages made up by
storage and chicha-brewing vessels did not change significantly between the early and late LIP.
This suggests that the amount of chicha brewed by households did not decrease through time,
as it might have if feasting moved out of Pedregal to state installations. Overall, the evidence for
315
changes in political activities such as feasting at Pedregal, and in Pedregal’s role in the wider
Jequetepeque Valley political landscape is far from conclusive, but suggests that some
reorganization may have occurred.
10.1.4 Acculturation
Beyond clearcut economic or political reorganization, we might expect more subtle changes to
accompany the incorporation of households and communities into new social systems. The
dramatic acculturation visible in other colonial settings, such as the Roman occupation of Britain
(Allison 1999) or the Russian occupation of the US Northwest (Lightfoot et al. 1998), is not likely
to have occurred in the Jequetepeque Valley, since the conquering Chimú state and
Jequetepeque Valley communities were already linked by strong historical and cultural ties. We
also have no evidence that Chimú settlers established intrusive villages in the Jequetepeque or
replaced the local population at existing villages. However, in theory households could have
adopted forms of Chimú culinary practice or emulated Chimú cuisine from the Moche Valley
center, or they could have acquired or emulated textiles and ceramics in the Chimú state style.
My research revealed limited shifts in preference or style in daily household life at
Pedregal associated with Chimú conquest. While the faunal and botanical assemblages
changed through time, they did not reflect the introduction of new ingredients or the
abandonment of others. In fact, the adoption of new foods seems to have run the other way,
from the Jequetepeque and other northern valleys toward the imperial core. Shelia Pozorski
(1982, also Pozorski and Pozorski 1997) has observed that guanábana (Annona muricata)
appeared in Moche Valley assemblages in the Chimú period, and argues that it could have
been introduced as a result of Chimú expansion to the north. At Pedregal, guanábana was
316
consumed throughout the LIP, and the category of tree fruits actually became less common
relative to cultigens like maize and cotton through time.
Many choices about what to eat are tied to the availability of particular species. For
example, shellfish assemblages from sites in the same valley tend to be more similar to one
another than to shellfish assemblages in different valleys At Pedregal, shellfish assemblages
changed through the LIP, but both early and late LIP shellfish assemblages are clearly distinct
from Chimú shellfish assemblages at sites in the Moche and Casma Valleys. Diachronic
changes in shellfish use were more likely related to fluctuations in shellfish populations or local
changes in preference or foraging strategies than to a desire to emulate Chimú meals. Likewise,
the clear distinction between Late Moche and LIP fish assemblages at Pedregal was most likely
due to multidecadal climatic fluctuations, rather than changes in preference.
No functionally new ceramic vessel forms were introduced into Pedregal households
during the LIP, and thus the set of culinary activities represented by the ceramic assemblage
does not change radically during the LIP. However, this does not necessarily mean that
Pedregal households resisted adopting elements of Chimú culinary practice. In functional terms,
the Moche Valley Chimú and Jequetepeque LIP ceramic assemblages do not differ greatly.
Plates, a typically Chimú form, became more common at Pedregal through time; however, they
did not represent a new culinary activity but rather replaced some, but not all, of the ring and
pedestal-base bowls common during the Lambayeque period. The clear change in the
Jequetepeque ceramic assemblage, in terms of function, came not with Chimú conquest but
several centuries earlier, during the Middle Horizon transitional period. Moche domestic
assemblages were distinct from LIP domestic assemblages in terms of vessel shape and size,
and some forms like bowls became common in domestic assemblages only in the LIP. If
changes in the functional characteristics of a domestic ceramic assemblage signal culinary
317
change, then clear culinary changes accompanied the collapse of the Moche state and the
emergence of Lambayeque influence (and possible Lambayeque conquest) in the
Jequetepeque, but not Chimú arrival.
It is clear, however, that Pedregal residents adopted some elements of Chimú ceramic
style, if not domestic practice. The presence of fineware sherds characteristic of Imperial Chimú
styles, such as piel de ganso, in looted burials at Pedregal shows that at least some members
of the community desired and had access to Chimú fineware. Crudely fired blackware sherds
with irregular piel de ganso patterns and red oxidized sherds with traditionally Chimú motifs
were also found at Pedregal. This evidence suggests that Pedregal families consumed locally
produced imitations of Chimú fineware.
Fineware styles may be more likely to change as a result of conquest and acculturation
than utilitarian styles, given the different contexts in which they are used and displayed. Some
elements of Chimú style did appear even within utilitarian assemblages at Pedregal. For
example, bulbous-lipped blackware ollas and neckless ollas and flat-bottomed, press-molded
blackware plates, very characteristic of Moche Valley Chimú assemblages, made up a small
percentage of Pedregal household assemblages. Changes through time in olla neck height and
carination angle led to a late LIP olla assemblage that more closely resembled Late Chimú
assemblages in the Moche Valley than did the early LIP assemblage. Along with these Chimú
forms, ring-base bowls and ollas with press-molded shoulders, characteristic of Lambayeque
assemblages, were also common throughout the early and late LIP. The utilitarian ceramic
assemblage at Pedregal did not shift dramatically to emulate Chimú assemblages from the
Moche Valley, even though it did shift subtly to more closely stylistically resemble these
assemblages.
318
10.1.5 Intrahousehold gender relations
Finally, we might expect that changing household strategies and priorities in a situation of
conquest might affect intrahousehold gender relations. In particular, tradeoffs in the priority or
intensity of some household activities would affect other aspects of domestic and social practice
and might well affect women and men differently. Cases from the Mantaro Valley and Aztec
Mexico point to ways in which women and men within the same households experienced
conquest differently, and I expected that a similar situation might have occurred at Pedregal.
Specifically, I expected that women’s participation in feasting and other political activities might
have become more restricted as their workload intensified, as Hastorf (1991) observed in the
Mantaro Valley.
I was not able to identify tightly constricted activity areas at Pedregal, and thus I have no
data to support or reject a scenario like that in the Mantaro Valley, where women’s processing
became more spatially restricted after Inka conquest. The isotopic evidence Hastorf (1991) used
to show an increasing differentiation in men’s and women’s diets after conquest is not yet
available for Pedregal either. It is thus unclear whether men’s and women’s participation in
feasts and other political activities changed after Chimú arrival. Though feasting may have
moved outside households to a greater extent in the late LIP, there is no evidence to suggest
that men were more active participants than women in community-wide feasts.
The botanical evidence did speak to an intensification of maize and cotton production
and processing at the household level. Processing these labor-intensive crops would likely have
increased women’s overall workload at Pedregal, though it is unclear what kind of trade-offs
were made to deal with this increased load. However, increased maize and cotton production (in
the context of decreased use of tree fruits and wild plants), would also have affected traditionally
319
male agricultural tasks. In the Andean model, where sowing and harvesting are conducted by
festive labor parties of men and women, intensified agricultural production would increase the
workload of both men and women.
Archaeological reconstructions of intrahousehold gender relations are necessarily
tenuous, built on a series of assumptions about men’s and women’s participation in particular
activities and the gender ideology that accompanied this assumed division of labor. Our
knowledge of how gender and identity affect individual experiences of conquest and other social
change suggests that there was not just one experience of conquest and change at Pedregal,
but rather that new state demands and household strategies were experienced differently by
distinct groups. However, the available evidence about how household practice changed at
Pedregal does not suggest that women bore the brunt of the change. Rather, it seems that both
men’s and women’s tasks would have been reorganized to some extent, and that families would
have had to work together to meet new tribute demands while maintaining traditional patterns in
other aspects of household practice such as cuisine and ritual.
10.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR CHIMÚ IMPERIALISM
One of the central goals of this dissertation was to investigate the impact of Chimú conquest on
local domestic economies. In Chapter 2, I outlined two possible scenarios for Chimú rule in the
Jequetepeque Valley, each with different implications for the domestic economy of rural
populations. The evidence from Pedregal suggests that, as in the direct rule scenario,
production of bulk staple goods, such as maize and cotton, by rural populations intensified after
Chimú arrival. Some aspects of the domestic economy, such as processing workload and
320
procurement strategies, may have changed as a result of this increased agricultural production.
In this sense, Chiú conquest and administration did reshape the domestic economies of local
populations.
However, Chimú intrusion into the daily lives of subject populations was limited. The
shape of daily meals, the range of domestic economic activities, and the participation of rural
households in political and ritual activities like feasting did not change. This evidence more
strongly supports an indirect rule scenario, in which Chimú rule did not effect a dramatic
reorganization at the local level, but was rather restricted to the upper levels of the existing
sociopolitical hierarchy in the valley. Aside from an increased focus on agricultural production,
some resulting changes to the organization of the domestic economy, and the adoption of some
elements of Chimú ceramic style, life at Pedregal remained relatively stable through the LIP.
These findings echo Moore’s (1985) study of lower class households at Manchan, a
Chimú administrative center in the Casma Valley, in which he found little evidence for state
control over the lower class domestic economy. They also agree with Sapp’s (2002) contention
that Chimú arrival in the Jequetepeque Valley spurred little reorganization of local sociopolitical
organization, though Sapp’s work focused on the palace of a local lord. This evidence suggests
that the Chimú state was able to extract staple surplus such as maize and cotton without
dramatically reorganizing the domestic economies of provincial populations.
10.3 CUISINE, CONTINUITY, AND CHANGE
Strong elements of both change and continuity characterized LIP households at Pedregal.
Because local residents were not replaced by Chimú colonists after conquest, culinary changes
321
at Pedregal were more a matter of shifting emphasis and priorities than the introduction of a
radically new cuisine. Despite changes in patterns of resource procurement, the general outline
of cuisine and culinary practice at Pedregal remained the same. Most changes observed at
Pedregal were changes in the intensity and focus of procurement and production strategies,
rather than in the range of domestic activities.
While some changes, such as the increased production of bulk staples like maize and
cotton, may have been directly impelled by Chimú state strategies, other changes, such as the
changing shape of the fish and shellfish assemblages, were unlikely to have been directly
imposed by the Chimú. These changes more likely reflect environmental fluctuations in the
availability of certain species. Not all change observed in Pedregal households, then, were
related to the political conquest of the valley. Instead, state strategies were just one factor that
affected Pedregal household economy.
In the case of Pedregal, then, households responded to regional political and economic
change by altering the focus, but not the range of household economic activities. Households
did not adopt new productive activities or specialize in the production of maize and cotton at the
expense of household economic self-sufficiency. Rather, the intensity of some activities, such
as agricultural production and processing, increased without affecting the overall breadth and
diversity of the household economy. It is unlikely, then, that the incorporation of the
Jequetepeque Valley into wider regional political and economic systems with Chimú conquest
resulted in the loss of household economic autonomy in rural communities.
As I observed in Chapter 1, the resiliency of past households might lie in their ability to
resist major change. Especially in situations of rapid regional change, conservatism might
require as much action of the part of household members as change, and so continuity in some
aspects of household life requires as much explanation as change in other household patterns.
322
At Pedregal, even though the intensity of some household economic activities increased from
the early to late LIP, I did not observe scheduling tradeoffs or changes in other aspects of daily
household practice. This may be a case in which households responded to the demands of the
state administrators by increasing production of certain goods while conserving the traditional
organization of domestic labor and cuisine.
What happened at Pedregal after Chimú arrival contrasts sharply with the effects of the
subsequent Inka conquest. The construction of an Inka road cutting through public architecture,
cemeteries, and a residential compound speaks to a very different relationship between the
conquering state and the local population. It suggests that the Inka exerted a much greater
degree of control over the valley’s population than the Chimú, at least in the lower valley Pampa
de Faclo region. Even in this region, not all episodes of conquest had the same kinds of effects
at the household level as did Chimú arrival at Pedregal, or for that matter as did the Inka in the
Mantaro Valley.
10.4 DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One important finding of the present study was the increase in focus on maize and other bulk
staples such as cotton in the late LIP. By comparing cob to kernel ratios at Pedregal to those
reported at Pacatnamú and El Brujo, I have argued that families at Pedregal were not only
growing maize for household consumption, but were growing and processing maize for export to
larger sites such as Pacatnamú and Farfán. In the future, this hypothesis could be greatly
strengthened by comparing Pedregal data to baseline data from coastal sites that grew maize
only for household consumption and were unlikely to have imported or exported maize, as well
323
as from other coastal exporting sites and sites that were likely to have imported maize, such as
Farfán and other Chimú administrative centers. Reconstructions of the regional economy and
the roles of individual sites would be deepened by the systematic collection of such data.
Reconstructions of household economy and culinary practice at Pedregal would also be
strengthened by comparison to ethnographic cases from the coast. Much of the ethnographic
and ethnoarchaeological work on Andean cuisine, agriculture, and household economy has
focused on the highlands, and I have drawn from it in discussing domestic practice at Pedregal.
Much less such work has been conducted on the coast. Future studies of historical and
contemporary agricultural practices, seasonality in resource use, cuisine, and household
organization on the coast have the potential to contribute greatly to archaeological
reconstructions of coastal cuisine and domestic economy.
The Pedregal case contributes to our growing understanding of the variability in local
responses to Chimú conquest and the different strategies adopted by the Chimú to govern their
expansive empire. Continued investigation of Chimú provincial rule, such as Hayashida’s (2006)
ongoing work in the Lambayeque region or studies of the middle valley frontiers of the Chimú
empire, have the potential to reveal very different local responses than what I observed at
Pedregal. An important next step is to investigate how this variation may have been patterned,
specifically as it relates to differences in Chimú administration, existing sociopolitical
organization in conquered provinces, and local communities.
324
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abercrombie, Thomas
1998 Pathways of Memory and Power: Ethnography and History among an Andean People.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Adams, Jenny L.
1999 Refocusing the Role of Food-Grinding Tools as Correlates for Subsistence Strategies in
the US Southwest. American Antiquity 64(3):475-498.
2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. Salt Lake City: The University of
Utah Press.
Alcock, Susan, Terence D’Altroy, Kathleen Morrison, and Carla Sinopoli, eds.
2001 Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Alconini, Sonia
2008 Dis-embedded Centers and Architecture of Power in the Fringes of the Inka Empire:
New Perspectives on Territorial and Hegemonic Strategies of Domination. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 27:63-81.
Aldenderfer, Mark S.
1998 Montane Foragers: Asana and the South-Central Andean Archaic. Iowa City: University
of Iowa Press.
Ambrose, Stanley H.
1993 Isotopic Analysis of Paleodiets: Methodological and Interpretive Considerations. In

Investigations of Ancient Human Tissue, edited by M.K. Sandford, pp. 59-130.
Langhorne PA: Gordon and Breach.
Andrews, Anthony
325
1974 The U-Shaped Structures at Chan Chan, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 1:241-264.
Antúnez de Mayolo R., Santiago
1981 La nutrición en el antiguo Perú. Lima: Banco Central de Reserva del Peru.
Appadurai, Arjun
1981 Gastropolitics in Hindu South Asia. American Ethnologist 8:494-511.
Arnold, Dean E.
1985 Ceramic Theory and Cultural Process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1993 Ecology and Ceramic Production in an Andean Community. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Barber, Richard T. and Francisco P. Chavez
1986 Ocean Variability in Relation to Living Resources during the 1982-1983 El Niño. Nature
319(6051):279-285.
Bawden, Garth
1995 The Structural Paradox: Moche Culture as Political Ideology. Latin American Antiquity
6(3):255-273.
Benson, Elizabeth P. and Anita G. Cook (eds.)
2001 Ritual Sacrifice in Ancient Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bermann, Marc P.
1993 Continuity and Change in Household Life at Lukurmata. In Domestic Architecture,

Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes, edited by Mark Aldenderfer,
pp. 114-135. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
1994 Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.
1997 Domestic Life and Vertical Integration in the Tiwanaku Heartland. Latin American
Antiquity 8(2): 93-112.
Billman, Brian
2002 Irrigation and the Origins of the Southern Moche State on the North Coast of Peru. Latin
American Antiquity 13(4):371-400.
326
Binford, Lewis R.
1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.
1983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. New York: Thames and
Hudson.
Blanton, Richard E.
1996 A Consideration of Causality in the Growth of Empire: A Comparative Perspective. In

Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by F. Berdan, R. Blanton, E. Hill Boone, M. Hodge, M.
Smith, and E. Umberger, pp. 219-228, Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1973 The Berber House. In Rules and Meanings, edited by M. Douglas, pp. 98-110.
Baltimore: Penguin Books.
Bourget, Steve
2001 Rituals of Sacrifice: its Practice at Huaca de la Luna and its Representations in Moche
Iconography. In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury,
pp.. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bourque, Nicole
1995 Developing People and Plants: Life-cycle and Agricultural Festivals in the Andes.
Ethnology 34(1):75-87.
1999 Cooking, Ploughing, and the Expression of Gender Identity in the Central Ecuadorian
Andes. Acta Americana 7(1):5-20.
Bowser, Brenda J.
2000 From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism,

Ethnicity, and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 7(3):219-248.
Bowser, Brenda J. and John Q. Patton
2004 Domestic Spaces as Public Places: An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study of Houses,

Gender, and Politics in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 11(2):157-181.
Boytner, Ran
1998 The Pacatnamú Textiles: A Study of Identity and Function. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.
327
Braun, David P.
1983 Pots as Tools. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J. Keene and A.
Moore, pp. 108-127. New York: Academic Press.
Bray, Tamara L.
2003a Inka Pottery as Culinary Equipment: Food, Feasting, and Gender in Imperial State
Design. Latin American Antiquity 14(1):3-38.
2003b To Dine Splendidly: Imperial Pottery, Commensal Politics, and the Inca State. In The
Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, edited by T.
Bray, pp. 93-143. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
2003c The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires (ed.)
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.
1991 Weaving and Cooking: Women’s Production in Aztec Mexico. In Engendering

Archaeology, edited by J. Gero and M. Conkey, pp. 224-251. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
Bruneton, Ariane
1975 Bread in the Region of the Moroccan High Atlas: A Chain of Daily Technical Operations
in Order to Provide Daily Nourishment. In Gastronomy: the Anthropology of Food and
Food Habits, edited by M. Arnott, pp. 275-286. Chicago: Mouton Publishers.
Bussman, Rainer and Douglas Sharon
2006 Traditional Medicinal Plant Use in Loja Province, Southern Ecuador. Journal of
Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2:44.
Calancha, Antonio de la
1638 Crónica moralizada del Ordén de San Augustín de el Perú con sucesos egenplares en
esta monarquía. Barcelona: Pedro Lacavalleria.
Campana, Cristóbal
2006 Chan Chan del Chimo. Lima: Editorial Orus.
Castillo Butters, Luis Jaime
2000 La presencia de Wari en San José de Moro. In Huari y Tiwanaku: modelos vs.
evidencias, edited by P. Kaulike and W. Isbell, pp. 143-180. Boletín de Arqueología
PUCP 4, Lima.
328
2001 The Last of the Mochicas: A View from the Jequetepeque Valley. In Moche Art and
Archaeology, edited by J. Pillsbury, pp. 307-332. New Haven: Yale University Press.
2003 Los últimos mochicas en Jequetepeque. In Moche: hacia el final del milenio, tomo II,
edited by S. Uceda and E. Mujica, pp. 65-124. Lima: Pontífica Universidad Católica del
Perú Fondo Editorial.
2004 Programa Arqueológico San José de Moro Temporada 2004. Report submitted to the
Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.
Cavallaro, Rafael
1991 Large-site Methodology: Architectural Analysis and Dual Organization in the Andes.
Occasional Paper No. 5. Department of Anthropology, University of Calgary.
Chapdelaine, Claude
2001 The Growing Power of a Moche Urban Class. In Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient
Peru, edited by J. Pillsbury, pp. 69-87. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Chavez, Francisco, John Ryan, Salvador Lluch-Cota, and Miguel Ñiquen,
2003 From Anchovies to Sardines and Back: Multidecadal Change in the Pacific Ocean.
Science 229:217-221.
Chicoine, David
in press Elite Strategies and Ritual Settings in Coastal Peru during the 1st Millennium B.C. In
Comparative Perspectives on the Archaeology of Coastal South America, edited by
Robyn E. Cutright, Enrique López-Hurtado, and Alexander Martin. University of
Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology.
Cieza de León, Pedro
1959[1553] The Incas of Pedro Cieza de León, translated by H. de Onis, edited by V. Von
Hagen. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Claassen, Cheryl
1998 Shells. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cleland, Kathryn and Izumi Shimada
1998 Paleteada Pottery and Potters: An Ancient Domestic Industry and Sub-Culture. In
Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization and Approaches, edited by Izumi Shimada,
pp. 111-150. MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supp. to V. 15.
Cobo, Bernabe
329
1990[1653]) Inca Religion and Customs, translated and edited by Rowland Hamilton. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Conlee, Christina
2000 Late Prehispanic Occupation of Pajonal Alto, Nasca, Peru: Implications for Imperial
Collapse and Societal Reformation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of California Santa Barbara.
Conlee, Christina, Jalh Dulanto, Carol J. Mackey, and Charles Stanish
2004 Late Prehispanic Sociopolitical Complexity. In Andean Archaeology, edited by Helaine

Silverman, pp. 209-236. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Conrad, Geoffrey W.
1981 Cultural Materialism, Split Inheritance, and the Expansion of Ancient Peruvian Empires.
1982 The Burial Platforms of Chan Chan: Some Social and Political Implications. In Chan
Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by M. Moseley and K. Day, pp. 87-118. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
1990 Farfán, General Pacatnamú, and the Dynastic History of Chimor. In The Northern
Dynasties: Kingship and Statecraft in Chimor, edited by M. Moseley and A. Cordy-
Collins, pp. 227-242. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Conrad, Geoffrey W. and Arthur A. Demarest
1984 Religion and Empire: The Dynamics of Aztec and Inca Expansionism. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cook, Anita and Mary Glowacki
2003 Pots, Politics, and Power: Huari Ceramic Assemblages and Imperial Administration. In
The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, edited
by Tamara Bray, pp. 173-202. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Cordy-Collins, Alana
1990 Fonga Sigde, Shell Purveyor to the Chimú Kings. In The Northern Dynasties: Kingship
and Statecraft in Chimor, edited by M. Moseley and A. Cordy-Collins, pp. 393-417.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
1994 An Unshaggy Dog Story. Natural History 103(2):34-41.
330
2001 Labretted ladies: Foreign women in Northern Moche and Lambayeque art. In Moche Art
and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by J. Pillsbury, pp. 247-257. Washington
D.C.:National Gallery of Art
Costin, Cathy Lynne
1996 Craft Production and Mobilization Strategies in the Inka Empire. In Craft Specialization
and Social Evolution, edited by V. Childe and B. Wailes, pp. 211-228. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology.
1998 Housewives, Chosen Women, Skilled Men: Cloth Production and Social Identity in the
Late Prehispanic Andes. In Craft and Social Identity, edited by Cathy Lynne Costin and
Rita Wright, pp. 123-141. 8 ed. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association. American Anthropological Association, Washington DC.
2001 Production and Exchange of Ceramics. In Empire and Domestic Economy, edited by T.
D’Altroy and C. Hastorf, pp. 203-242. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Costin, Cathy Lynne and Timothy Earle
1989 Status Distinction and Legitimation of Power as Reflected in Changing Patterns of

Consumption in Late Prehistoric Peru. American Antiquity 54:691-714.
Covey, R. Alan
2008 Multiregional Perspectives on the Archaeology of the Andes during the Late Intermediate
Period. Journal of Archaeological Research 16(3):287-338.
Craig, Nathan
2005 The Formation of Early Settled Villages and Emergence of Leadership: A Test of Three
Theroretical Models in the Rio Llave, Lake Titicaca Basin, Southern Peru. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Anthropology, University of California Santa Barbara.
Crown, Patricia
2000 Women’s Role in Changing Cuisine. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest,
edited by P. Crown, pp. 221-266. School of American Research.
Cutright, Robyn E.
2005 Food for the Dead, Cuisine of the Living: Mortuary Food Offerings from Pacatnamú and
Farfán, Jequetepeque Valley, Perú. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University
of Pittsburgh.
2007 Comida para los muertos, cocina de los vivos: ofrendas funerarias de comida en el valle
de Jequetepeque, Perú. In Memorias del II Congreso Ecuatoriano de Antropología y
Arqueología, edited by Fernando Garcia, pp. 319-336. Quito: Editorial Abya-Yala.
331
Cutright, Robyn E. and Howard I. Tsai
m.s. Spinning Technology and the Social Organization of Textile Production in the
Jequetepeque Valley, Perú. Manuscript in possession of the author.
D’Altroy, Terence
1992 Provincial Power in the Inka Empire. Washington: Smithsonian University Press.
2001 From Autonomous to Imperial Rule. In Empire and Domestic Economy, edited by T.
2002 The Incas. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
D'Altroy, Terence and Timothy Earle
1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy. Current
Anthropology 26:187-206.
D’Altroy, Terence N. and Christine A. Hastorf
1984 The Distribution and Contents of Inca State Storehouses in the Xauxa Region of Peru.
2001 Empire and Domestic Economy (eds.). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Day, Kent
1982 Ciudadelas: Their Form and Function. In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City. M. Moseley
and K. Day, eds., pp. 55-66. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
DeMarrais, Elizabeth
2001 The Architecture and Organization of Xauxa Settlements. In Empire and Domestic
Economy, edited by T. D’Altroy and C. Hastorf, pp. 115-154. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Dietler, Michael
2001 Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African
Contexts. In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics,
and Power, M. Dietler and B. Hayden, eds., pp. 65-114. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian.
Dietler, Michael and Brian Hayden, eds.
2001 Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power.
Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
332
Dillehay, Tom D.
1995 Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices (ed.). Washington D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks
2001 Town and Country in Late Moche Times: A View from Two Northern Valley. In Moche Art
and Archaeology, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 259-284. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Dillehay, Tom D. and Alan L. Kolata
2004 Long-term Human Response to Uncertain Environmental Conditions in the Andes.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(12):4325-4330.
Dillehay, Tom D., Alan L. Kolata, and Mario Pino Q.
2004 Pre-industrial Human and Environmental Interactions in Northern Peru during the Late
Holocene. The Holocene 14(2):272-281.
Donley-Reid, Linda
1990 A Structuring Structure: the Swahili House. In Domestic Architecture and the Use of
Space, edited by S. Kent, pp. 114-126. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Donnan, Christopher
1986 The Huaca I Complex. In The Pacatnamú Papers, Vol 1, edited by C. Donnan and G.
Cock, pp. 63-84. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
2001 Moche Burials Uncovered. National Geographic 199(3):58-73.
Donnan, Christopher and Luis Jaime Castillo
1994 Excavaciones de tumbas de sacerdotisas moche en San José de Moro, Jequetepeque.

In Moche: Propuestas y perspectivas, edited by S. Uceda and E. Mujica, pp. 415-424.
Trujillo and Lima: Universidad Nacional de Trujillo and Instituto Francés de Estudios
Andinas.
Donnan, Christopher and Guillermo Cock (eds.)
1986 The Pacatnamú Papers, Vol. 1. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
1997 The Pacatnamú Papers, Vol. 2: The Moche Occupation. Los Angeles: University of
California, Los Angeles.
Donnan, Christopher and Sharon G. Donnan
333
1997 Moche Textiles from Pacatnamú. In The Pacatnamú Papers, Vol. 2: The Moche
Occupation, edited by C. Donnan and G. Cock. Los Angeles: University of California,
Los Angeles.
Donnan, Christopher and Donna McClelland
1999 Moche Fineline Painting: Its Evolution and Its Artists. Los Angeles: UCLA Fowler
Museum of Cultural History.
Echevarría Jara, Milagros
2001 Ventanilla, un complejo arquitectónico monumental chimú en la margen izquierda del

valle medio de Jequetepeque. Licenciatura thesis, Universidad Nacional de La Libertad,
Peru.
Eling, Herbert H.
1987 The Role of Irrigation Networks in Emerging Societal Complexity During Late
Prehispanic Times, Jequetepeque Valley, North Coast, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Texas, Austin.
Estrella, Eduardo
1986 El pan de America: etnohistoria de los alimentos aborígenes en el Ecuador. Madrid:

Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Falconer, Steven E.
1995 Rural Responses to Early Urbanism: Bronze Age Household and Village Economy at
Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:399-419.
Figueroa, Alejandra and Frances Hayashida
2005 Sitios amurallados en la costa norte del Perú: Observaciones preliminares de Cerro
Arena, Pampa de Chaparrí, Lambayeque. In Identidad y transformación en el
Tawantinsuyu y en los Andes coloniales. Perspectivas arqueológicas y etnohistóricas,
edited by P. Kaulicke, G. Urton, and I. Farrington, pp. 359-371. Boletin de Arqueología
PUCP 8 (2004). Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Peru.
Franco Jordan, Régulo y César Gálvez Mora
2005 Muerte, identidades, y prácticas funerarias post-Mochicas en el Complejo El Brujo, Valle

de Chicama, costa norte del Perú. Corriente Arqueológica 1:79-118.
Gero, Joan
1992 Feasts and Females: Gender Ideology and Political Meals in the Andes. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 25(1):15-30.
334
Gero, Joan M. and M. Christina Scattolin
2002 Beyond Complementarity and Hierarchy: New Definitions for Archaeological Gender
Relations. In In Pursuit of Gender: Worldwide Archaeological Approaches, edited by S.
Nelson and M. Rosen-Ayalon, pp. 155-171. New York: AltaMira Press.
Gillin, John P.
1947 Moche, A Peruvian Coastal Community. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution,

Institute of Social Anthropology.
Goldstein, Paul
2000 The Vertical Archipelago and Diaspora Communities in the Southern Andes. In The
Archaeology of Communities, edited by M. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 182-209. New
York: Routledge.
Goldstein, Robin Coleman
2008 Hearths, Grinding Stones, and Households: Rethinking Domestic Economy in the
Andes. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 18(1):37-48.
Goody, Jack
1982 Cooking, Cuisine, and Class. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Gose, Peter
2000 The State as a Chosen Woman: Brideservice and the Feeding of Tributaries in the Inka
Empire. American Anthropologist 102(1):84-97.
Graubart, Karen B.
2000 Weaving and the Construction of a Gender Division of Labor in Early Colonial Peru.
American Indian Quarterly 24(4):537-561.
Greenberg, Laurie S. Z.
1996 You Are What You Eat: Ethnicity and Change in Yucatec Immigrant House Lots,
Quintana Roo, Mexico. Ph.D dissertation, Departments of Geography and Land
Resources, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Gumerman, George, IV
1991 Subsistence and Complex Societies: Diet Between Diverse Socio-economic Groups,
Pacatnamu, Peru. Ph.D dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of
335
1994 Corn for the Dead: The Significance of Zea mays in Moche Burial Offerings. In Corn and
Culture in the Prehistoric New World, edited by S. Johannessen and C. Hastorf, pp. 399-
410. Boulder: Westview Press.
1997a Food and Complex Societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4(2):105-
139.
1997b Burial Offerings in Moche Burials at Pacatnamú. In The Pacatnamú Papers, Vol. 2: The
Moche Occupation, edited by C. Donnan and G. Cock, pp. 243-248. University of
2002 Llama Power and Empowered Fishermen: Food and Power at Pacatnamú, Peru. In The
Dynamics of Power, edited by M. O’Donovan, pp. 238–256. Occasional Paper 30,
Center for Archaeological Investigations. Carbondale : Southern Illinois University.
Hagstrum, Melissa B.
1989 Technological Continuity and Change: Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology in the Peruvian

Andes. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Halperin, Rhoda H.
1994 Cultural Economies Past and Present. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Harris, Olivia
1982 The Dead and the Devils among the Bolivian Laymi. In Death and the Regeneration of
Life, edited by Maurice Bloch and John Parry, pp. 45-73. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Hassig, Ross
1985 Trade, Tribute and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Political Economy of the
Valley of Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
1992 War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. Berkeley: University of California Press
Hastorf, Christine A.
1990 The Effect of the Inka State on Sausa Agricultural Production and Crop Consumption.
1991 Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory. In Engendering Archaeology, edited by J. Gero
and M. Conkey, pp. 132-159. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
1993 Agriculture and the Onset of Political Inequality Before the Inca. Cambridge: University
of Cambridge Press.
336
2001 Agricultural Production and Consumption. In Empire and Domestic Economy, edited by
T. D’Altroy and C. Hastorf, pp. 155-178. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
2003 Andean Luxury Foods: Special Food for the Ancestors, the Deities and the Elite.
Antiquity 77:110-119.
Hastorf, Christine A. and Virginia S. Popper, eds.
1988 Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of

Archaeological Plant Remains. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayashida, Frances M.
2006 The Pampa de Chaparri: Water, Land, and Politics on the North Coast of Peru. Latin
2008 Ancient Beer and Modern Brewers: Ethnoarchaeological Observations of Chicha

Production in Two Regions of the North Coast of Peru. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 27(2):161-174.
Hayden, Brian
2001 Fabulous Feasts: a Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In Feasts:

Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by
M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 23-64.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
Hayden, Brian and Aubrey Cannon
1983 Where the Garbage Goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 2:117-163.
Hecker, Wolfgang and Giesela Hecker
1990 Ruinas, caminos y sistemas de irrigación prehispanicos en la provincia de Pacasmayo,

Peru. Patrimonio Arqueológico Zona Norte/3. Instituto Departamental de Cultura-La
Libertad.
Hendon, Julia A.
1996 Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice

and Domestic Relations. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:45-61.
1997 Women’s Work, Women’s Space, and Women’s Status Among the Classic-Period Maya
Elite of the Copan Valley, Honduras. In Women in Prehistory: North America and
Mesoamerica, edited by C. Claassen and R. Joyce, pp. 33-46. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.
Henrickson, Elizabeth F. and Mary M. A. McDonald
337
1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and an Archeological Application.
American Anthropologist 85(3):630-643.
Hernandez Astete, Francisco
2002 La mujer en el Tahuantinsuyu. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Heyerdahl, Thor, Daniel Sandweiss, and Alfredo Narvaez
1995 The Pyramids of Túcume. New York: Thames and Hudson.
Hildebrand, John A. and Melissa B. Hagstrum
1999 New Approaches to Ceramic Use and Discard: Cooking Pottery from the Peruvian
Andes in Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. Latin American Antiquity 10(1):25-46.
Hiller, Bill and Julienne Hanson
1984 The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hillman, George
1984 Interpretation of Archaeological Plant Remains: The Application of Ethnographic Models

from Turkey. In Plants and Ancient Man, edited by W. Van Zeist and W. Casparie, pp. 1-
42. Boston: A.A. Balkema.
Hirth, Kenneth
1993 The Household as an Analytical Unit: Problems in Method and Theory. In Prehispanic
Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, R. Santley and K. Hirth eds, pp. 21-36. Boca
Raton: CRC.
Hodder, Ian
1987 The Meaning of Discard: Ash and Domestic Space in Baringo, Kenya. In Method and
Theory for Activity Area Research: an Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by S. Kent,
pp. 424-448. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hodder, Ian and Craig Cessford
2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 69(1):17-40.
Hough, Ian
1999 Diet, Economic Specialization, and Complex Society on the North Coast of Peru. MA
Thesis, Northern Arizona University.
Ikehara, Hugo and Koichiro Shibata
338
2008 Festines e Integración Social en el Periodo Formativo: Nuevas Evidencias de Cerro
Blanco, Valle Bajo de Nepeña. In Encuentros: Identidad, Poder y Manejo de Espacios
Públicos, Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 9 (2005), edited by P. Kaulicke and T. D.
Dillehay, pp. 123-59. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Isbell, Billie Jean
1978 To Defend Ourselves: Ecology and Ritual in an Andean Village. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.
Isbell, William
1997 Mummies and Mortuary Monuments. Austin: University of Texas Press.
2004 Mortuary Preferences: A Wari Culture Case Study for Middle Horizon Peru. Latin
American Antiquity 15:3-32.
Jennings, Justin
2004 La Chichera y el Patrón: Chicha and the Energetics of Feasting in the Prehispanic
Andes. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 14(1):241-
259.
2006 Understanding Middle Horizon Peru: Hermeneutic Spirals, Interpretative Traditions, and
Wari Administrative Centers. Latin American Antiquity 17(3):265-285.
Johnson, Ilana
in preparation Households and Social Organization at the Late Moche Period Site of Pampa
Grande, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation to be submitted to the Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Joralemon, Donald and Douglas Sharon
1993 Sorcery and Shamanism: Curanderos and Clients in Northern Peru. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press.
Junker, Laura, Karen Mudar, and Marla Schwaller
2004 Social Stratification, Household Wealth, and Competitive Feasting in 15th/16th c.

Philippine Chiefdoms. Research in Economic Anthropology 15:307-358.
Keatinge, Richard W.
1975 Urban Settlement Systems and Rural Sustaining Communities: An Example from Chan
Chan’s Hinterland. Journal of Field Archaeology 2(3):215-227.
339
1982 The Chimú Empire in a Regional Perspective: Cultural Antecedents and Continuities. In
Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by M. Moseley and K. Day, pp. 197-224.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Keatinge, Richard W. and Geoffrey W. Conrad
1983 Imperialist Expansion in Peruvian Prehistory: Chimú Administration of a Conquered

Territory. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(3):255-283.
Kembel, Silvia
2001 Architectural Sequence and Chronology at Chavín de Huántar, Perú. Ph.D. dissertation,
Department of Anthropological Sciences, Stanford University.
Kempton, Willet
1981 The Folk Classification of Ceramics: A Study of Cognitive Prototypes. New York:
Academic Press.
Kent, Jonathan, Teresa Rosales T., Victor Vásquez S., and Cathy Gaither
2004 Informe Final Temporada 2004 Proyecto ‘Manejo ecosustentable y desarrollo cultural
del complejo arqueológico Santa Rita ‘B.’ Report submitted to the Instituto Nacional de
Cultura, Lima.
Kent, Susan
1990 A Cross-Cultural Study of Segmentation, Architecture, and the Use of Space. In

Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, edited by S. Kent, pp. 127-152.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klymyshyn, A.M. Ulana
1982 Elite Compounds in Chan Chan. In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by M.
Moseley and K. Day, pp. 119-143. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Kolata, Alan
1982 Chronology and Settlement Growth at Chan Chan. In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City,
edited by M. Moseley and K. Day, pp. 67-85. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press.
1983 Chan Chan and Cuzco: On the Nature of the Ancient Andean City. In Civilization in the
Ancient Americas, edited by R. Leventhal and A. Kolata, pp. 345-371. Washington DC:
Dumbarton Oaks.
340
1990 The Urban Concept of Chan Chan. In The Northern Dynasties: Kingship and Statecraft
in Chimor, edited by M. Moseley and A. Cordy-Collins, pp. 107-144. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, DC.
Kolb, Charles C.
1985 Demographic Estimates in Archaeology: Contributions from Ethnoarchaeology on

Mesoamerican Peasants. Current Anthropology 26(5):581-599.
Koschmieder, Klaus
2004 Siedlungsweise und Subsistenzstrategien an der südlichen Peripherie des Chimú-

Imperiums. Ph.D. dissertation, Free University of Berlin.
Koschmieder, Klaus and Rafael Vega-Centeno
1996 Puerto Pobre: centro administrativo Chimú en el valle de Casma. Revista del Museo de
Arqueología, Antropología e Historia 6:161-200.
Kosok, Paul
1965 Life, Land, and Water in Ancient Peru. New York:Long Island University Press.
Klymyshyn, Alexandra M. Ulana
1990 The Development of Chimú Administration in Chan Chan. In The Origins and
Development of the Andean State. Edited by J. Haas, S. Pozorski, and T. Pozorski, pp.
97-110. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LaMotta, Vincent M. and Michael B. Schiffer
1999 Formation Processes of House Floor Assemblages. In The Archaeology of Household

Activities, edited by P. Allison, pp. 30-42. London: Routledge.
Lau, George
2002 Feasting and Ancestor Veneration at Chinchawas, North Highlands of Ancash, Peru.
Latin American Antiquity 13:279-304.
Lechtman, Heather
1991 The Production of Copper-Arsenic Alloys in the Central Andes: Highland Ores and
Coastal Smelters? Journal of Field Archaeology 18(1):43-76.
Lemonnier, Pierre
1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum
of Anthropology Anthropological Papers No. 88.
341
Lennstrom, Heidi A. and Christine A. Hastorf
1995 Interpretation in Context: Sampling and Analysis in Paleoethnobotany. American

Antiquity 60(4):701-721.
Levine, Terry, ed.
1992 Inka Storage Systems. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Lightfoot, Kent, Antoinette Martinez, and Ann M. Schiff
1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological
Study of Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity
63(2):199-222.
Lockard, Gregory
2005 Political Power and Economy at the Archaeological Site of Galindo, Moche Valley, Peru.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico.
Lyman, R. Lee
1994 Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. New York: Cambridge

University Press.
Mackey, Carol J.
1983 La cerámica Chimú a fines del Horizonte Medio. Revista del Museo Nacional Tomo
XLVII:73-91.
1987 Chimú Administration in the Provinces. In The Origins and Development of the Andean
State, edited by J. Haas, T. Pozorski, and S. Pozorski., pp. 121-129. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
2003 La transformación socioeconómica de Farfán bajo el gobierno Inka. Boletín de

Arqueología PUCP 7:321-353.
2004 La ocupación de dos centros administrativos en el valle de Jequetepeque: el Algarrobal

de Moro y Farfán. In Desarrollo arqueológico costa norte del Perú, vol. 2, edited by L.
Valle Alvarez, pp. 75-88. Ediciones SIAN, Trujillo.
2006 Elite Residences at Farfán: A Comparison of the Chimú and Inka Occupations. In
Palaces and Power in the Americas, eds. J. Christie and P. Sarro, pp. 313-352. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
in press Chimú Statecraft in the Provinces. In Foundations of Andean Civilization.
Mackey, Carol J. and A. M. Ulana Klymyshyn
342
1990 The Southern Frontier of the Chimú Empire. In The Northern Dynasties: Kingship and
Statecraft in Chimor, M. Moseley and A. Cordy-Collins, eds, pp. 195-226. Washington,
D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Mackey, Carol J. and Cesar Jaúregui
2001 Informe Preliminar del Año 2001, Proyecto Arqueológico Farfán. Report submitted to the
Malpass, Michael A., ed.
1993 Provincial Inca. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Manzanilla, Linda and Luis Barba
1990 The Study of Activities in Classic Households: Two Case Studies from Cobá and
Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:41-49.
Marcus, Joyce
1987 Late Intermediate Occupation at Cerro Azul, Perú. Technical Report 20. University of
Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
1998 Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca: Figurine-Making, Divination, Death and the
Ancestors. Memoirs No. 33. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Marcone, Giancarlo
in press Highland Empire, Lowland Politics: Reasons that the Wari Did Not Dominate the
Central Coast. In Comparative Perspectives on the Archaeology of Coastal South
America, edited by Robyn E. Cutright, Enrique López-Hurtado, and Alexander Martin.
University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology.
Martin, Alexander
2001 The Dynamics of Precolumbian Spondylus Trade Across the South American Central
Pacific Coast. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Florida Atlantic University, Boca
Raton, FL.
343
Martin, Alexander, Enrique López-Hurtado, and Robyn E. Cutright
in press Comparative Perspectives: an Introduction. In Comparative Perspectives on the

Archaeology of Coastal South America, edited by Robyn E. Cutright, Enrique López-
Hurtado, and Alexander Martin. University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American
Archaeology.
Martin, Debra
2000 Bodies and Lives: Biological Indicators of Health Differentials and Division of Labor by
Sex. In Women and Men in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by P. Crown, pp. 267-
300. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Matthews, W.
2005 Micromorphological and Microstratigraphic Traces of Uses and Concepts of Space. In

Inhabiting Catalhoyuk: Reports from the 1995-1999 Seasons, edited by I. Hodder.
Monograph of the McDonald Institute and the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
Mauricio, Ana Cecilia
2007 Cerámica doméstica y organización política en el valle del Jequetepeque. Paper

presented at the Comparative Perspectives on the Archaeology of Coastal South
America conference, August 3-5, 2007, Lima, Peru.
Mayer, Enrique
2001 The Articulated Peasant: Household Economies in the Andes. Boulder: Westview Press.
McClelland, Donald
1986 Brick Seriation at Pacatnamú. In The Pacatnamú Papers, vol. 1, edited by C. Donnan
and G. Cock, pp. 27-46. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
McEwan, Gordon
2005 Pikillacta: The Wari Empire in Cuzco. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
Meadows, Karen
1999 The Appetites of Households in Early Roman Britain. In The Archaeology of Household
Activities, ed. P. Allison, pp. 101-120. New York: Routledge.
Meskell, Lynn
1998 An Archaeology of Social Relations in an Egyptian Village. Journal of Archaeological

Method and Theory 5(3): 209-243.
344
Miller, George
1979 An Introduction to the Ethnoarchaeology of the Andean Camelids. Ph.D. dissertation,

Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Miller, George and Richard Burger
1995 Our Father the Cayman, our Dinner the Llama: Animal Utilization at Chavín de Huántar,
Peru, American Antiquity 60:421–458
Mintz, Sidney W. and Christine M. Du Bois
2002 The Anthropology of Food and Eating. In Annual Review of Anthropology 31:99-119.
Miracle, Preston
2002 Mesolithic Meals from Mesolithic Middens. In Consuming Passions and Patterns of
Consumption, edited by P. Miracle and N. Milner, pp. 65-88. Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research.
Miracle, Preston and Nicky Milner, eds.
2002 Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
Moore, Henrietta L.
1986 Space, Text, and Gender. New York: The Guilford Press.
Moore, Katherine, Maria Bruno, José Capriles, and Christine Hastorf
2007 Integrated Contextual Approaches to Understanding Past Activities Using Plant and
Animals Remains from Kala Uyuni. In Kala Uyuni: An Early Political Center in the
Southern Lake Titicaca Basin 2003 Excavations of the Taraco Archaeological Project,
edited by Matthew Bandy & Christine A. Hastorf, pp.113-133. Contributions of the
Archaeological Research Facility No. 64. Berkeley: University of California Berkeley
Press.
Moore, Jerry D.
1985 Household Economics and Political Integration: the Lower Class of the Chimú Empire.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1989 Pre-Hispanic Beer in Coastal Peru: Technology and Social Context of Prehistoric
Production. American Anthropologist 91(3):682-695.
1991 Cultural Responses to Environmental Catastrophes: Post-El Niño Subsistence on the

Prehistoric North Coast of Peru. Latin American Antiquity 2(1):27-47.
345
1992 Pattern and Meaning in Prehistoric Peruvian Architecture: The Architecture of Social
Control in the Chimú State. Latin American Antiquity 3:95-113.
1996 Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2003 Life Behind Walls: Patterns in the urban landscape on the prehistoric north coast of
Peru. In The Social Construction of Ancient Cities, edited by Monica L. Smith, pp. 81–
102. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press.
Moore, Jerry D. and Carol J. Mackey
2008 The Chimú Empire. In The Handbook of South American Archaeology, edited by H.
Silverman and W. Isbell, pp. 783-808. New York: Springer.
Moreno, Rodrigo A., Roger D. Sepúlveda, Ernesto I. Badano, Sven Thatje, Nicolás Rozbaczylo,
and Franklin D. Carrasco
2008 Subtidal Macrozoobenthos Communities from Northern Chile during and post El Niño
1997-1998. Helgoland Marine Research 62(1):45-55.
Morris, Craig
1979 Maize Beer in the Economy, Politics, and Religion of the Inca Empire. In Fermented
Food Beverages in Nutrition, edited by C. Gastineau, pp. 21-34. New York:Academic
Press.
1998 Inka Strategies of Incorporation and Governance. In Archaic States, edited by Gary
Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 293-309. School of Research, Santa Fe.
Morrison, Kathleen D.
2001 Coercion, Resistance, and Hierarchy: Local Processes and Imperial Strategies in the
Vijayanagara Empire. In Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by
S. Alcock, T. D’Altroy, K. Morrison, and C. Sinopoli, pp. 252-278. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Moseley, Michael E.
1983 The Good Old Days Were Better: Agrarian Collapse and Tectonics. American
Anthropologist 85(4):773-799.
1990 Structure and History in the Dynastic Lore of Chimor. In The Northern Dynasties: Kingship
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
1992 The Incas and their Ancestors. London: Thames and Hudson.
Moseley, Michael E. and Alana Cordy-Collins, eds.
346
1990 The Northern Dynasties: Kingship and Statecraft in Chimor. Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks.
Moseley, Michael E. and Kent Day, eds.
1982 Chan Chan: Andean Desert City. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Moseley, Michael E. and Eric E. Deeds
1982 The Land in Front of Chan Chan: Agrarian Expansion, Reform, and Collapse in the
Moche Valley. In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by M. Moseley and K. Day, pp.
25-54. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Moseley, Michael E. and Carol J. Mackey
1972 Peruvian Settlement Pattern Studies and Small Site Methodology. American Antiquity
37(1):67-81.
Murra, John V.
1972 El `control vertical' de un máximo de pisos ecológicos en la economía de las sociedades

andinas. In Visita de la provincia de León de Huánuco en 1562, Iñigo Ortiz de Zúñiga,
visitador, edited by John V. Murra, Vol. 2, pp. 427-76. Huánuco, Peru: Universidad
Nacional Hermilio Valdizán.
1980 [1956] The Economic Organization of the Inka State. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
1984 Andean Societies. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 13:119-41
Naroll, Raoul
1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27:587–589.
Netherly, Patricia J.
1984 The Management of Late Andean Irrigation Systems on the North Coast of Peru.
1990 Out of Many, One: The Organization of Rule in the North Coast Polities. In The Northern
Dynasties: Kingship and Statecraft in Chimor, edited by M. Moseley and A. Cordy-
Collins, pp. 461-488. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Netting, Robert McC.
1993 Peasant Farming and the Chayanov Model. In Smallholders, Householders: Farm
Families and the Ecology of Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University
Press.
347
Nordt, Lee, Frances Hayashida, Tom Hallmark, and Corey Crawford
2004 Late Prehistoric Soil Fertility, Irrigation Management, and Agricultural Production in
Northwest Coastal Peru. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal. 19(1): 21-46.
Odell, George
1996 Stone Tools and Mobility in the Illinois Valley: From Hunter-Gatherer Camps to
Agricultural Villages. Ann Arbor: International Monographs in Prehistory.
ONERN
1988 Plan de ordenamiento ambiental de la Cuenca del Rio Jequetepeque para la protección
del reservorio Gallito Ciego y del valle agrícola. Lima.
Ortloff, Charles, Michael E. Moseley, and Robert Feldman
1982 Hydraulic Engineering Aspects of the Chimú Chicama-Moche Intervalley Canal.

American Antiquity 47:572-595.
Ortner, Sherry B.
1984 Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History
26(1):126-166.
Owen, Bruce
2001 The Economy of Metal and Shell Wealth Goods. In Empire and Domestic Economy,
edited by T. D’Altroy and C. Hastorf, pp. 265-296. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Pacheco Torres, Victor R., Alfredo Altamirano Enciso, and Enma Guerra Porras
1986 The Osteology of South American Camelids. (E. Sandefur, trans.) Archaeological
Research Tools Volume 3, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Parker Pearson, Mike, ed.
2003 Food, Culture, and Identity in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. BAR International
Series 1117. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Parnell, J. Jacob, Richard E. Terry, and Payson Sheets
2002 Soil Chemical Analysis of Ancient Activities in Ceren, El Salvador: A Case Study of a
Rapidly Abandoned Site. Latin American Antiquity 13(3):331-342.
Paulsen, Allison C.
348
1974 The Thorny Oyster and the Voice of God: Spondylus and Strombus in Andean
Prehistory. American Antiquity 39(4): 597-607.
Pearsall, Deborah M.
2000 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures, second edition. New York: Academic

Press.
Pearsall, Deborah M. and Dolores R. Piperno
1993 Current Research in Phytolith Analysis: Applications in Archaeology and Paleoecology.

MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, University Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Pillsbury, Joanne
1996 The Thorny Oyster and the Origins of Empire: Implications of Recently Uncovered
Spondylus Imagery from Chan Chan, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 7(4): 313-40.
Plescia, Sara
2003 Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University.

Manuscript in possession of the author.
Plunket, Patricia, ed.
2002 Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica. Monograph 46. Cotsen Institute of

Archaeology. University of California, Los Angeles.
Pozorski, Thomas
1980 The Early Horizon Site of Huaca de los Reyes: Societal Implications. American Antiquity
45(1):100-110.
Pozorski, Thomas and Shelia G. Pozorski
1982 Reassessing the Chicama-Moche Intervalley Canal: Comments on “Hydraulic

Engineering Aspects of the Chimú Chicama-Moche Intervalley Canal.” American
Antiquity 47(4).
1997 Cherimoya and Guanábana in the Archaeological Record of Peru. Journal of

Ethnobiology 17(2):235-248.
Pozorski, Shelia G.
1979 Prehistoric Diet and Subsistence of the Moche Valley, Peru. World Archaeology 11(2):
163-184.
349
1982 Subsistence Systems in the Chimú State. In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by
M. Moseley and K. Day, pp. 177-196. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Pozorski, Shelia G. and Thomas Pozorski
1992 Early Civilization in the Casma Valley, Peru. Antiquity 66:840-870.
Prieto B., O. Gabriel
2005 Secuencia ocupacional del Área 35: una aproximación al término de la segunda
campaña de excavaciones. In Informe de Excavaciones, Proyecto Arqueológico San
José de Moro, Temporada 2004, edited by Luis Jaime Castillo Butters. Report submitted
to the Instituto Nacional de la Cultura, Lima, Perú.
In press Aproximaciones a la Configuración Política Lambayeque: Una Perspectiva desde el

Sitio de San José de Moro, Valle de Jequetepeque. In Comparative Perspectives on the
Archaeology of Coastal South America, edited by Robyn E. Cutright, Enrique López-
Hurtado, and Alexander Martin. University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American
Archaeology.
Quilter, Jeffrey
2002 Moche Politics, Religion, and Warfare. Journal of World Prehistory 16(2): 145-195.
Ramirez, Susan
2005 To Feed and Be Fed: Cosmological Bases of Authority and Identity in the Andes.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Ravines, Rogger
1978 Tecnología Andina. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
1980 Chanchan: Metrópoli Chimú (ed.) Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
1982 Arqueología del Valle Medio del Jequetepeque. Lima: Proyecto de Rescate
Arqueológico Jequetepeque, INC/DEJEZA.
Reddy, Seetha N.
1997 If the Threshing Floor Could Talk: Integration of Agriculture and Pastoralism during the
Late Harappan in Gujerat, India. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16:162-187.
Riascos, José M.
2006 Effects of El Niño-Southern Oscillation on the Population Dynamics of the Tropical

Bivalve Donax dentifer from Málaga Bay, Colombian Pacific. Marine Biology
148(6):1283-1293.
350
Rice, Prudence M.
1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1989 Ceramic Diversity, Production, and Use. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited
by R. Leonard and G. Jones, pp. 109-117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ringberg, Jennifer E.
2008 Figurines, Household Rituals, and the Use of Domestic Space in a Middle Moche Rural
Community. Arqueología Moche: Nuevos Enfoques, edited by L. Castillo, H. Bernier, G.
Lockhard, and J. Rucabado, pp. Lima: Pontificia Unversidad Católica del Peru and
Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos.
Robin, Cynthia
2003 New Directions in Classic Maya Household Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological

Research 11(4): 307-356.
Rosales T., Teresa, Jonathan Kent, Victor Vásquez S., and Jonathan Bethard
2006 Informe Final Temporada 2006 Proyecto ‘Manejo ecosustentable y desarrollo cultural
del complejo arqueológico Santa Rita ‘B.’ Report submitted to the Instituto Nacional de
Cultura, Lima.
Rosas Rintel, Marco
2003 Informe de Investigaciones, Proyecto Arqueológico Cerro Chepen, Campaña 2003.

Report submitted to the Instituto Nacional de la Cultura, Lima, Perú.
Roselló, E., Victor Vásquez, A. Morales, and Teresa Rosales
2002 Marine Resources from an Urban Moche (470-600 AD) Area in the ‘Hucas del Sol y de
la Luna’ Archaeological Complex (Trujillo Peru). Osteoarchaeology 11(1-2):72-87.
Rostworowski de Diez Canseco, Maria
1970 Mercaderes del valle de Chincha en la época prehispánica: Un documento y unos

comentarios. In Etnia y sociedad 1977: 97-140. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
1975 Pescadores, artesanos y mercaderes costeños en el Peru prehispánico. Revista del

Museo Nacional, t.XLI, pp. 311-349.
1977 Coastal Fishermen, Merchants, and Artisans in Pre-Hispanic Peru. In The Sea in the
Pre-Columbian World, edited by E. Benson, pp. 167-188. Washington DC: Dumbarton
Oaks.
Rowe, John
351
1948 The Kingdom of Chimor. Acta Americana 6(1-2):26-59.
Ruiz Rosell, Karim
2006 El Área 38: contextos de la elite Mochica Medio. In Programa Arqueológico San José de
Moro Temporada 2006, edited by L. Castillo, pp. 48-63. Report submitted to the Instituto
Nacional de Cultura, Lima.
Sandefur, Elsie C.
2001 Animal Husbandry and Meat Consumption. In Empire and Domestic Economy, eds. T.
Sandweiss, Daniel H.
1992 The Archaeology of Chincha Fishermen: Specialization and Status in Inka Perú. Bulletin
of Carnegie Museum of Natural History 29, Pittsburgh.
Sandweiss, Daniel H., Kirk A. Maash, Fei Chai, C. Fred T. Andrus, and Elizabeth J. Reitz
2004 Geoarchaeological Evidence for Multidecadal Natural Climatic Variability and Ancient
Peruvian fisheries. Quaternary Research 61(3):330-334.
Sassaman, Kenneth
1999 The Social Contradictions of Traditional and Innovative Cooking Techniques in the
Prehistoric American Southeast. In The Emergence of Pottery, edited by W. Barnett and
J. Hoopes, pp. 223-240. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Sapp, William D., III
2002 The Impact of Imperial Conquest at the Palace of a Local Lord in the Jequetepeque
Valley, Northern Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Schaedel, Richard P.
1988 La etnografía muchik de las fotografías de H. Brüning 1886–1925. Lima: COFIDE

(Corporación Financiera de Desarollo S.A.)
Schiffer, Michael
1985 Is There a “Pompeii Premise” in Archaeology? Journal of Anthropological Research 41:

18-41.
Schoeninger, Margaret J. and Katherine Moore
1992 Bone Stable Isotope Studies in Archaeology. Journal of World Prehistory 6:247–296
352
Schreiber, Katharina
1992 Wari Imperialism in Middle Horizon Peru. Anthropological Papers 87. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan.
Schwartz, Marion
1997 A History of Dogs in the Early Americas. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Shimada, Izumi
1982 Horizontal Archipelago and Coast-Highland Interaction in North Peru: Archaeological

Models. In El Hombre y su Ambiente en los Andes Centrales, edited by L. Millones and
H. Tomoeda, pp. 185-257. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
1985 La Cultura Sicán: Caracterización Arqueológica. In Presencia Histórica de Lambayeque,

edited by Eric Mendoza S., pp. 76-133. Lima: Editorial e Imprenta DESA S.A..
1987 Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of Prehistoric States in North Peru. In The Origin and
Development of the Andean State, edited by J. Haas, T. and S. Pozorski, pp. 130-144.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1990 Cultural Continuities and Discontinuities on the Northern North Coast of Peru, Middle-
Late Horizons. In The Northern Dynasties: Kingship and Statecraft in Chimor, edited by
M. Moseley and A. Cordy-Collins, pp. 297-391. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
1994 Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press.
2000 The Late Prehispanic Coastal States. In The Inca World: The Development of Pre-
Columbian Peru AD 1000-1534, edited by L. Minelli, pp. 49-110. Norman, OK: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Shimada, Melody and Izumi Shimada
1985 Prehistoric Llama Breeding and Herding on the North Coast of Peru. American Antiquity
50:3-26.
Shimada, Izumi, Stephen Epstein, and Alan K. Craig
1982 Batán Grande: A Prehistoric Metallurgical Center in Peru. Science 216:952-959.
Shimada, Izumi, Crystal B. Schaaf, Lonnie G. Thomson, and E. Mosley-Thompson
1991 Cultural Impacts of Severe Droughts in the Prehistoric Andes: Application of a 1,500-
Year Ice Core Precipitation Record. World Archaeology 22(3):247–270.
Siegel, Peter E. and Peter G. Roe
353
1986 Shipibo Archaeo-Ethnography: Site Formation Processes and Archaeological
Interpretation. World Archaeology 18(1):96-115.
Sikkink, Lynn
1988 Traditional Crop-Processing in Central Andean Households: An Ethnoarchaeological

Perspective. In Multidisciplinary Studies in Andean Anthropology, edited by V. Vizthum,
pp. 65-87. Michigan Discussions in Anthropology 8, Ann Arbor, MI.
2001 Ethnoarchaeology and Contemporary Domestic Economy in the Mantaro Valley. In

Empire and Domestic Economy, edited by T. D'Altroy and C. Hastorf, pp. 97-111. New
York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sillar, Bill
1992 The Social life of Andean Dead. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 11(1):107-124.
Sinopoli, Carla M.
1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York: Plenum Press.
1994 The Archaeology of Empires. Annual Review of Anthropology 23(1):159-180.
Silverblatt, Irene R.
1987 Moon, Sun, and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Skibo, James M.
1992 Pottery Function: A Use-alteration Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Springer
Smith, Marion
1985 Toward an Economic Interpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size and Shape to
Use. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by B. Nelson, pp. 254-309. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Smith, Michael E.
2004 The Archaeology of Ancient State Empires. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:73-102.
Smith, Michael E. and Frances F. Berdan
1996 Introduction. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by F. Berdan, R. Blanton, E. Hill Boone,
M. Hodge, M. Smith, and E. Umberger, pp. 1-12. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Stahl, Peter W. and James A. Zeidler
354
1990 Differential Bone-Refuse Accumulation in Food-Preparation and Traffic Areas on an
Early Ecuadorian House Floor. Latin American Antiquity 1(2):150-169.
Stanish, Charles
1992 Ancient Andean Political Economy. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1997 Nonmarket Imperialism in the Prehispanic Andes: The Inka Occupation of the Titicaca
Basin. Latin American Antiquity 8(3):195-216
Sweely, Tracy
1998 Gender, Space, People, and Power at Cerén, El Salvador. In Manifesting Power:
Gender and the Interpretation of Power in Archaeology, edited by T. Sweely, pp. 155-
172. New York: Routledge.
Swenson, Edward R.
2004 Ritual Power in the Urban Hinterland: Religious Pluralism and Political Decentralization
in Late Moche Jequetepeque, Peru. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Chicago.
2006 Competitive Feasting, Religious Pluralism, and Decentralized Power in the Late Moche
Period. In Andean Archaeology III, edited by W. Isbell and H. Silverman, pp. 112-142.
New York: Springer.
2007a Local Ideological Strategies and the Politics of Ritual Space in the Chimú Empire.
Archaeological Dialogues 14(1):61-90.
2007b Adaptive Strategies or Ideological Innovations? Interpreting Sociopolitical Developments

in the Jequetepeque Valley of Peru during the Late Moche Period. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 26(2): 253-282.
Tarazona, Juan, Wolf E. Arntz, and Elba Canahuire
2008 Impact of Two "El Niño" Events of Different Intensity on the Hypoxic Soft Bottom
Macrobenthos off the Central Peruvian Coast. Marine Ecology 17(1-3):425-446.
Tate, James
2006 The Late Horizon Occupation of the El Brujo Site Complex, Chicama Valley, Peru. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California Santa Barbara.
Tellenbach, Michael
1986 Die Ausgrabungen in der Formativzeitlichen Siedlung Montegrande, Jequetepeque-Tal,

Nord-Peru. München: C.H. Beck.
355
Terrones C., Jorge L.
2006 Informe de Investigaciones, Proyecto Arqueológico Pedregal. Report submitted to the

Topic, John R.
1977 The Lower Class at Chan Chan: a Qualitative Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, Harvard University.
1980 Excavaciones en los barrios populares de Chanchán. In Chanchan: Metrópoli Chimú,

edited by R. Ravines, pp. 267-282. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
1982 Lower-Class Social and Economic Organization at Chan Chan. In Chan Chan: Andean
Desert City, M. Moseley and K. Day eds, pp. 145-176. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico.
1990 Craft production in the Kingdom of Chimor. In The Northern Dynasties:Kingship and
Statecraft in Chimor, edited by M. Moseley and A. Cordy-Collins, pp. 145-176.
Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
2003 From Stewards to Bureaucrats: Architecture and Information Flow at Chan Chan, Peru.
Latin American Antiquity 14(3): 243-274.
Topic, John and Michael E. Moseley
1983 Chan Chan: a Case Study of Urban Change in Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 21:153-182.
Topic, John R. and Theresa L. Topic
2000 Hacia la comprensión del fenómeno Wari: una perspectiva norteña. In Wari y Tiwanaku:
modelos y evidencias I, edited by P. Kaulicke and W. Isbell, pp. 181-218. Lima: Boletín
de Arqueología PUCP No. 4.
Topic, Theresa L.
1990 Territorial Expansion and the Kingdom of Chimor. In The Northern Dynasties: Kingship
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Tsai, Howard I.
2007 Ritual Space as an Area of Ethnic Identity Production: The Case of Las Varas, a Late
Intermediate Period Site in the Middle Jequetepeque Valley, Perú. Paper presented at
the Comparative Perspectives on the Archaeology of Coastal South America
conference, August 3-5, 2007, Lima, Peru.
Tsai, Howard I and Leonardo Murga
356
2006 Proyecto Arqueológico Las Varas: Informe preliminar de excavaciones 2006. Report
submitted to the Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.
Tschauner, Hartmut
2001 Socioeconomic and Political Organization in the Late Prehispanic Lambayeque Sphere,
Northern North Coast of Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
Uceda, Santiago
1997 Esculturas en miniatura y una maqueta en madera. In Investigaciones en la Huaca de la

Luna 1995, edited by S. Uceda, E. Mujica and R. Morales, pp. 151-176. Trujillo: Facultad
de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional de La Libertad.
Valdez, Lidio M. and J. Ernesto Valdez
1997 Reconsidering the Archaeological Rarity of Guinea Pig Bones in the Central Andes.
Current Anthropology 38(5):896-898.
Van Buren, Mary
1996 Rethinking the Vertical Archipelago: Ethnicity, Exchange, and History in the South
Central Andes. American Anthropologist 98(2):338-351.
2001 The Archaeology of El Niño Events and Other “Natural” Disasters. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 8(2):129-149.
Vásquez S., Victor and Teresa Rosales T.
1998 Zooarqueología de la zona urbana Moche. In Investigaciones en la Huaca de la Luna

1996, S. Uceda, E. Mujica, and R. Morales, eds., pp. 173-196. Trujillo, Peru: Facultad de
Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional de la Libertad.
2006 Análisis de restos animales del sitio el Pedregal, Valle de Jequetepeque. Report
prepared by the Centro de Investigaciones Arqueobiológicas y Paleoecológicas Andinas
(ARQUEOBIOS), Trujillo, Perú and submitted to the Proyecto Arqueológico Pedregal.
2007 Análisis de restos animales del sitio el Pedregal, Valle de Jequetepeque. Report
prepared by the Centro de Investigaciones Arqueobiológicas y Paleoecológicas Andinas
(ARQUEOBIOS), Trujillo, Perú and submitted to the Proyecto Arqueológico Pedregal.
Vásquez S., Victor, Teresa Rosales T., and Franco León del Val
1991 Análisis del material orgánico no humano. Final report submitted to the Proyecto
Arqueológico Túcume.
Vaughn, Kevin
357
2000 Archaeological Investigations at Marcaya: A Village Approach to Nasca Economic and
Sociopolitical Oeganization. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University
of California Santa Barbara.
Verano, John W.
2001 War and Death in the Moche World: Osteological Evidence and Visual Discourse. In
Moche Art and Archaeology in Ancient Peru, edited by Joanne Pillsbury, pp.. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Vogel, Melissa A. and Percy Vilcherrez
2008 Informe Final: Proyecto Arqueológico El Purgatorio 2008. Report submitted to the
Von Hagen, Adriana, and Craig Morris
1998 The Cities of the Ancient Andes. London: Thames and Hudson.
Warner, John P., Tom D. Dillehay, and Juan Casteñada Murga
2005 An Investigation into the Utilization of Space, Architecture, and Landscape within a
Proto-Urban Settlement. Informe – Campaña de 2004-2005, Proyecto de Investigación
Arqueológica (2004-2005) en Cañoncillo. Report submitted to the Instituto Nacional de
Cultura, Lima.
Weir, Glendon, and Herbert H. Eling
1986 Pollen Evidence for Economic Plant Utilization in Prehistoric Agricultural Fields of
Jequetepeque Valley, Northern Peru. In Andean Archaeology: Papers in Memory of
Clifford Evans, edited by R. Matos, M. Solvig, and H. Eling, pp. 150-163. Institute of
Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Weismantel, Mary J.
1988 Food, Gender, and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Prospect Heights: Waveland
Press.
1989 Making Breakfast and Raising Babies: The Zumbagua Household as a Constituted
Process. In The Household Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Production,
R. Wilk, ed, pp. 55-72. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Welch, Paul D. and C. Margaret Scarry
1995 Status-Related Variation in Foodways in the Moundville Chiefdom. American Antiquity

60(3): 397-419.
Wheeler, Alwyne and Andrew K. G. Jones
358
1989 Fishes. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White C.D., Nelson A.J., Longstaffe F.J., Grupe G., Jung
2009 Landscape Bioarchaeology at Pacatnamú, Peru: Inferring Mobility from *13C and *15 N
Values of Hair. Journal of Archaeological Science, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.03.008
Wiessner, Polly and Wulf Schiefenhövel, eds.
1996 Food and the Status: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books.
Wilk, Richard R.
1984 Households in Process: Agricultural Change and Domestic Transformation among the
Kekchi Maya of Belize. In Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the
Domestic Group, edited by R. Netting et al, pp. 217-244. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
1989 Decision Making and Resource Flows Within the Household: Beyond the Black Box. In
The Household Economy, edited by R. Wilk, pp. 23-52. Boulder, CO: Westview.
1991 Household Ecology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Wilk, Richard R. and William Rathje (eds)
1982 Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. American

Behavioral Scientist 25(6).
Wilson, David J.
1988 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Lower Santa Valley, Peru. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian University Press.
Wing, Elizabeth S.
1972 Utilization of Animal Resources in the Peruvian Andes. Appendix 4. In Andes 4.

Excavations at Kotosh, Peru 1963 and 1966, edited by S. Izumi and K. Terada, pp. 327-
351. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Wrangham, Richard, James Jones, Greg. Laden, David Pilbeam, and Nancylou Conklin-Brittain
1999 The Raw and the Stolen: Cooking and the Ecology of Human Origins. Current
Anthropology 40:567–594.
Yanagisako, Sylvia J.
1979 Family and Household: the Analysis of Domestic Groups. Annual Review of
Anthropology 8:161-205.
359
Zuidema, R. Tom
1990 Dynastic Structures in Andean Cultures. In The Northern Dynasties: Kingship and
Statecraft in Chimor, edited by M. Moseley and A. Cordy-Collins, pp. 489-506.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
360
Appendix A
FIELD AND ANALYSIS FORMS
361
Bag tag
PROYECTO ARQUEOLÓGICO
PEDREGAL 2006 Número __________
Sector__________ Area __________ Unidad___________
Rasgo___________ Nivel __________ Altura __________
Material ____________________________________________
Comentarios:
Nombre ____________ Fecha _________________
Level form
Sector _______________ Área _______________ Unidad _______________
Rasgo _______________ Nivel _______________ Volumen _______________
Alturas _______________ Datum _______________

Hallazgos:
Cerámica _____ Moluscos _____ Textiles _____
Líticos _____ Botánicos _____
Metales _____ Huesos _____
Otros __________________________________________________________________
Bolsas y números: _______________________________________________________

Muestras:
C14 ________________________ Tierra _________________________________
Documentación:
Planos ___________ Perfiles _____________ Fotos ________________________
Composición (particular de suelo, color Munsell, espesura y densidad, materiales culturales, comentarios, métodos)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Interpretación ___________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Nombre _________________________ Fecha _______________________
362
Appendix B
EXCAVATION DATA
363
Key
Context—unique number assigned to each excavated context

Sector, Area, Unit—see Chapter 4 for descriptions of sectors, areas, and units. PP denotes
a test pit (pozo de prueba)
Feature—hearth, posthole, storage pit, etc distinct from surrounding level
Level—distinct natural level in unit or feature
Volume—excavated volume of level (does not include soil samples, generally ≤ 3L)
Context code—
Level
1-superficial
2-wall fall post-abandonment
3-floor
4-between floor fill, high cultural content
5-between floor fill, clean
6-sterile
7-maize fill
8-construction fill
9-adobe
10-burnt area
11-use surface
Feature
20-prepared basin
21-posthole
22-burnt area
23-fill
24-cut into sterile
25-linear feature/quincha
26-textile
27-vessel/ceramic
28-banqueta/other architectural feature
29-looter's pit/disturbed
30-pit with small amounts of ash or fairly clean
31-pit with fill—mixed ash and refuse
32-spondylus offering
33-hearth or burnt offering
34-refuse
Assoc.—grouping of levels and features in Sector A (see Chapter 9)
Occ.—LIP occupation in Sector A (selected units)
A=surface
B=wall fall/post-abandonment
C=late LIP
D=early LIP
F=undetermined
364
Table A.1. Excavation data
Volume Context
Context Sector Area Unit Feature Level Assoc. Occ.
(L) code
1 A 4 3 0 00 0 0 surface A
2 A 4 3 0 1 310 1 surface A
3 A 4 3 0 2 120 5 surface B
4 A 4 3 0 3 340 29 fill F
5 A 4 3 0 4 20 3 Piso 1 C
6 A 4 3 0 5 690 4 fill D
7 A 4 3 0 6 80 3 Piso 2 D
8 A 4 3 A 1 20 20 fill B
9 A 4 3 B 1 520 29 fill F
10 A 4 3 C 1 490 29 Piso 1 F
11 A 4 3 D 1 0 5 Piso 1 C
12 A 4 3 E 1 2 23 Piso 2 D
13 A 4 3 F 1 0 33 Piso 2 D
14 A 4 3 G 1 1.4 29 Piso 2 F
15 A 4 3 I 1 0 23 Piso 2 D
16 D 1 PP1 0 1 50 1
17 D 1 PP1 0 2 20 2
18 D 1 PP1 0 3 50 2
19 D 1 PP1 0 4 110 4
20 D 1 PP1 0 5 70 4
21 D 1 PP1 0 6 40 5
22 D 1 PP1 A 1 0 21
23 D 1 PP1 B 1 0 21
24 D 1 PP1 C 1 1 21
25 D 1 PP1 D 1 1 21
26 D 1 PP1 E 1 0 21
27 D 1 PP1 F 1 1 21
28 D 1 PP2 0 0 0 0
29 D 1 PP2 0 1 30 1
30 D 1 PP2 0 2 10 2
31 D 1 PP2 0 3 40 2
32 D 1 PP2 0 4 30 2
34 D 1 PP2 0 6 40 4
37 D 1 PP2 0 9 cap 1 50 4
38 D 1 PP2 0 9 cap 2 50 4
39 D 1 PP2 0 10 10 3
40 D 1 PP2 0 11 40 4
41 D 1 PP2 0 12 20 3
42 D 1 PP2 0 13 20 4
43 D 1 PP2 G 1 10 23
44 A 2 1 0 1 206 1 surface A
45 A 2 1 0 2 205 2 surface B
46 A 2 1 0 3 0 3 Piso 1 C
47 A 2 1 0 4 37 3 Piso 2 C
48 A 2 1 0 5 122 4 fill C
365
Volume Context
(L) code
49 A 2 1 0 6 70 5 fill C
50 A 2 1 0 7 140 10 fill C
51 A 2 1 0 8 3.3 3 Piso 3 D
52 A 2 1 0 9 30 4 fill D
53 A 2 1 0 10 240 11 Piso 4 D
54 A 2 1 A 1 42 31 Piso 1 C
55 A 2 1 A 2 70 31 Piso 1 C
56 A 2 1 A 3 160 31 Piso 1 C
57 A 2 1 B 1 1 30 Piso 1 C
58 A 2 1 C 1 0 32 fill C
59 A 2 1 D 1 1.1 23 fill C
60 A 2 1 E 3 110 23 fill C
61 A 2 1 F 1 10 33 fill C
62 A 2 1 G 1 4 33 fill C
63 A 2 1 H 1 2 33 Piso 3 C
64 A 2 1 I 1 176 22 Piso 3 C
65 A 2 1 I 2 80 0 Piso 3 C
66 A 2 1 J 1 60 23 Piso 4 D
67 A 2 1 K 1 12 23 Piso 4 D
68 A 2 1 L 1 66 23 Piso 4 D
69 A 2 1 M 1 3 27 fill D
70 A 2 1 N 1 1.7 21 fill D
71 A 2 1 O 1 2 24 fill D
72 A 2 1 P 1 0 0 fill D
73 A 2 1 Q 1 2.5 33 fill D
74 A 2 1 relleno NA 0 0 fill F
75 A 2 1 amb 6 0 0 0 fill F
76 A 6 2 amb 1 1 127 1 surface A
77 A 6 2 amb 2 1 66 1 surface A
78 A 6 2 amb 1 2 194 2 surface B
79 A 6 2 amb 2 2 150 2 surface B
80 A 6 2 amb 1 3 106 3 Piso 1 C
81 A 6 2 amb 2 3 0 3 Piso 1 C
82 A 6 2 amb 1 4 nv 1 80 4 fill C
83 A 6 2 amb 1 4 nv 2 80 4 fill C
84 A 6 2 amb 2 4 nv 3 0 0 fill C
85 A 6 2 amb 2 4 180 4 fill C
86 A 6 2 amb 1 5 34 3 Piso 2 C
87 A 6 2 amb 2 5 50 3 Piso 2 C
88 A 6 2 amb 1 6 107 4 fill D
89 A 6 2 amb 1 7 87 11 fill D
90 A 6 2 amb 2 7 52 11 fill D
91 A 6 2 amb 1 8 63 5 fill D
92 A 6 2 amb 2 8 74 5 fill D
93 A 6 2 amb 1 9 20 3 Piso 3 D
94 A 6 2 amb 2 9 20 3 Piso 3 D
95 A 6 2 amb 1 10 47 5 fill D
366
Volume Context
(L) code
96 A 6 2 amb 1 11 10 3 Piso 4 D
97 A 6 2 amb 2 11 16 3 Piso 4 D
98 A 6 2 amb 1 12 85 5 fill D
99 A 6 2 amb 2 12 87 5 fill D
100 A 6 2 amb 1 13 33 3 Piso 5 D
101 A 6 2 amb 2 13 24 3 Piso 5 D
102 A 6 2 amb 1 A 1 0 0 Piso 1 C
103 A 6 2 amb 1 A 2 0 0 Piso 1 C
104 A 6 2 amb 1 B 1 35 23 Piso 2 C
105 A 6 2 amb 1 B 2 74 23 Piso 2 C
106 A 6 2 amb 2 B 1 0 0 Piso 2 C
107 A 6 2 amb 2 C 1 0 30 fill D
108 A 6 2 amb 2 D 1 4 31 fill D
109 A 6 2 amb 1 E 1 0 30 Piso 3 D
110 A 6 2 amb 1 F 1 0 23 Piso 3 D
111 A 6 2 amb 2 G 1 17 30 Piso 4 D
112 A 6 2 amb 2 H 1 6 30 Piso 4 D
113 A 6 2 amb 2 I 1 0 30 Piso 4 D
114 A 6 2 amb 1 J 1 25 31 Piso 4 D
115 A 6 2 amb 1 K 1 13 31 Piso 4 D
116 A 6 2 amb 1 K 2 100 31 Piso 4 D
117 A 6 2 amb 2 L 1 7 31 Piso 4 D
118 A 6 2 amb 1 M 1 15 23 Piso 4 D
119 A 6 2 amb 1 N 1 13 31 Piso 5 D
120 A 6 2 amb 1 O 1 6 30 Piso 5 D
121 B 1 PP3 0 1 50 1
122 B 1 PP3 0 2 70 2
123 B 1 PP3 0 3 60 4
124 B 1 PP3 A 1 2 34
125 B 1 PP3 B 1 32 23
126 B 1 PP3 C 1 30 23
127 B 1 PP3 D 1 5 21
128 B 1 PP4 0 1 30 1
129 B 1 PP4 0 2 155 4
130 B 1 PP4 0 3 90 4
131 B 1 PP4 0 4 93 4
132 B 1 PP4 0 6 22 5
133 B 1 PP4 0 7 53 11
134 B 1 PP4 0 8 19 5
135 B 1 PP4 0 9 100 3
136 B 1 PP4 A 1 0 26
137 B 1 PP4 B 1 7 23
138 B 1 PP4 C 1 1 34
139 B 1 PP4 D 1 14 23
140 B 1 PP4 E 1 6 33
141 B 1 PP4 F 1 4 23
142 B 1 PP4 G 1 8 23
367
Volume Context
(L) code
143 B 1 PP5 0 1 50 1
144 B 1 PP5 0 2 56 2
145 B 1 PP5 0 3 80 2
146 B 1 PP5 0 4 70 5
147 B 1 PP5 A 1 30 23
148 B 1 PP5 A 2 15 23
149 B 1 PP5 B 1 18 21
150 B 1 PP5 C 1 5 21
151 B 1 PP5 D 1 5 21
152 B 5 PP6 0 1 40 1
153 B 5 PP6 0 2 90 2
154 B 5 PP6 0 3 40 3
155 B 5 PP6 0 4 30 3
156 B 5 PP7 0 1 12 1
157 B 5 PP7 0 2 12 2
158 B 5 PP7 0 3 30 2
159 B 5 PP7 0 4 31 2
160 B 5 PP7 0 5 8 11
161 B 5 PP7 0 6 0 3
162 B 5 PP7 0 7 34 4
163 B 5 PP7 0 8 19 10
164 B 5 PP7 A 1 42 23
165 B 5 PP7 B 1 5 31
166 B 2 PP8 0 0 0 0
167 B 2 PP8 0 1 42 1
168 B 2 PP8 0 2 64 2
169 B 2 PP8 0 3 33 2
170 B 2 PP8 0 4 2 3
171 B 2 PP8 0 5 34 4
172 B 2 PP8 0 6 40 4
173 B 2 PP8 0 7 47 3
174 B 2 PP8 A 1 85 23
175 B 2 PP8 A 2 30 23
176 B 2 PP8 B 1 1 23
177 B 2 PP8 C 1 16 33
178 B 2 PP8 D 1 17 23
179 B 2 PP9 0 1 150 29
180 B 2 PP9 0 2 110 29
181 B 2 PP9 A 1 250 29
182 B 2 PP9 B 1 50 29
183 B 2 PP9 C 1 10 29
184 B 2 PP10 0 1 0 1
185 B 2 PP10 0 2 70 29
186 B 2 PP10 0 3 60 2
187 B 2 PP10 0 4 90 2
188 B 2 PP10 0 5 0 3
189 B 2 PP10 A 1 75 29
368
Volume Context
(L) code
190 B 2 PP10 B 1 40 29
191 B 2 PP10 C 1 2 24
192 B 2 PP10 D 1 7 24
193 B 2 PP10 E 1 3 24
194 B 2 PP10 F 1 3 24
195 B 2 PP10 G 1 9 24
196 B 2 PP10 H 1 3 24
197 B 2 PP11 0 1 180 1
198 B 2 PP11 0 2 37 29
199 B 2 PP11 0 3 60 29
200 B 2 PP11 0 4 630 29
201 B 2 PP11 A 5 6 23
202 B 4 PP12 0 00 0 0
203 B 4 PP12 0 1 73 1
204 B 4 PP12 0 2 190 29
205 B 4 PP12 0 3 250 29
206 B 4 PP12 0 4 240 29
207 B 4 PP12 0 5 248 8
208 B 4 PP12 0 6 254 8
209 B 4 PP12 0 7 100 8
210 B 4 PP12 0 8 120 8
211 B 4 PP12 0 9 71 8
212 B 4 PP13 0 1 244 1
213 B 4 PP13 0 2 100 2
214 B 4 PP13 0 3 105 2
215 B 4 PP13 0 4 120 2
216 B 4 PP13 0 10 25 2
217 B 4 PP13 0 11 30 2
218 B 4 PP13 0 12 45 3
219 B 4 PP13 0 13 40 4
220 B 4 PP13 0 14 100 5
221 B 4 PP13 0 15 30 11
222 B 4 PP13 0 16 100 11
223 B 4 PP13 0 17 30 10
224 B 4 PP13 0 18 40 5
225 B 4 PP13 A 1 6 34
226 B 4 PP13 B 1 0 24
227 B 4 PP13 D 1 10 24
228 B 4 PP13 F 1 1 21
229 B 3 PP14 0 1 90 1
230 B 3 PP14 0 2 94 2
231 B 3 PP14 0 3 28 2
232 B 3 PP14 0 4 74 4
233 B 3 PP14 0 5 40 11
234 B 3 PP14 0 6 59 3
235 B 3 PP14 0 7 6 4
236 B 3 PP14 0 8 57 4
369
Volume Context
(L) code
237 B 3 PP14 0 9 30 4
238 B 3 PP14 0 10 23 7
239 B 3 PP14 0 11 82 4
240 B 3 PP14 0 12 4 4
241 B 3 PP14 0 13 6 2
242 B 3 PP14 0 14 57 4
243 B 3 PP14 0 15 0 7
244 B 3 PP14 0 16 58 4
245 B 3 PP14 0 17 85 4
246 B 3 PP14 0 18 26 3
247 B 3 PP14 0 19 19 4
248 B 3 PP14 0 20 117 4
249 B 3 PP14 A 1 35 23
250 B 3 PP14 B 1 12 30
251 B 3 PP14 C 1 0 7
252 B 3 PP14 D 1 6 21
253 B 3 PP14 E 1 1.4 21
254 B 3 PP14 F 1 6 21
255 B 3 PP14 G 1 5 23
256 B 3 PP15 0 1 20 1
257 B 3 PP15 0 2 27 2
258 B 3 PP15 0 3 96 4
259 B 3 PP15 0 4 60 5
260 B 3 PP15 0 5 140 11
261 B 3 PP15 0 6 93 2
262 B 3 PP15 0 7 10 3
263 B 3 PP15 A 1(7) 56 23
264 B 3 PP15 B 1 24 31
265 B 3 PP15 D 1 0 31
266 B 3 PP16 0 1 61.5 1
267 B 3 PP16 0 2 32 28
268 B 3 PP16 0 2A 22 28
269 B 3 PP16 0 3 28 3
270 B 3 PP16 0 4 71 4
271 B 3 PP16 0 5 186 7
272 B 3 PP16 0 6 33 4
273 B 3 PP16 0 7 105 7
Ext.
274 B 3 PP16 8 0 0
camino
275 B 3 PP16 0 8 19 4
276 B 3 PP16 0 9 41 4
277 B 3 PP16 0 10 0 7
278 B 3 PP16 0 11 126 4
279 B 3 PP16 0 12 23 3
280 B 3 PP16 0 13 5 2
281 B 3 PP16 0 14 20 4
282 B 3 PP16 0 15 33 4
370
Volume Context
(L) code
283 B 3 PP16 0 16 7 34
284 B 3 PP16 0 17 16 5
285 B 3 PP16 A 1 14 23
286 B 3 PP16 B 1 10 23
287 C 1 PP17 0 1 25 1
288 C 1 PP17 0 2 35 2
289 C 1 PP17 0 3 20 2
290 C 1 PP17 0 4 40 2
291 C 1 PP17 0 5 35 2
292 C 1 PP17 A 1 5 24
293 C 1 PP17 B 1 0 24
294 C 1 PP17 C 1 2 24
295 D 3 PP18 0 1 Supf. 12 1
Int.
296 D 3 PP18 2 7 2
camino
Ext.
297 D 3 PP18 2 7 2
camino
Int.
298 D 3 PP18 3 10 5
camino
Ext.
299 D 3 PP18 3 13 5
camino
Int.
300 D 3 PP18 4 14 11
camino
Ext.
301 D 3 PP18 4 18 11
camino
Int.
302 D 3 PP18 5 4 10
camino
Ext.
303 D 3 PP18 5 7 10
camino
Int.
304 D 3 PP18 6 26 10
camino
Ext.
305 D 3 PP18 6 23 10
camino
306 D 3 PP18 0 7 54 4
307 D 3 PP18 0 8 20 4
308 D 3 PP18 A 1 (8) 0 33
309 D 3 PP18 A 2 (8) 0 0
310 D 3 PP18 B 1 (8) 0 33
311 C 3 PP19 0 1 54 1
313 C 3 PP19 0 3 38 6
314 C 3 PP19 A 0 26 23
315 C 3 PP19 B 0 44 23
316 C 3 PP19 C 0 0 23
317 C 3 PP20 0 1 90 1
318 C 3 PP20 0 2 94 4
319 C 3 PP20 0 3 20 11
320 C 3 PP20 0 4 42 4
321 C 3 PP20 0 5 65 4
371
Volume Context
(L) code
322 C 3 PP20 A 1 25 5
323 C 3 PP20 B 1 87 31
324 C 3 PP20 E 1 5 25
325 C 3 PP20 F 1 23 24
326 C 3 PP20 G 1 2 24
327 C 3 PP20 H 1 2 24
328 B 4 PP21 0 1 1371 1
329 B 4 PP21 0 2 42 4
330 B 4 PP21 0 3 25 3
331 B 4 PP21 0 4 40 4
332 B 4 PP21 0 5 120 8
333 B 4 PP21 0 6 100 8
334 B 4 PP21 0 7 100 5
335 B 4 PP21 0 8 0 7
336 B 4 PP21 0 9 364 5
337 B 4 PP21 0 10 5 5
338 B 4 PP21 0 11 70 4
339 B 4 PP21 A 9 14 5
340 B 4 PP21 B 9 15 5
341 B 4 PP21 C 11 13 23
342 B 4 PP21 D 12 53 23
343 C 3 PP22 0 1 40 1
344 C 3 PP22 0 2 40 2
345 C 3 PP22 0 3 26 2
346 C 3 PP22 0 4 30 2
347 C 3 PP22 0 5 40 5
348 C 3 PP22 0 6 41 11
349 C 3 PP22 0 7 14 11
350 C 3 PP22 0 8 9 3
351 C 3 PP22 0 9 30 10
352 C 3 PP22 0 10 16 5
353 C 3 PP22 0 12 23 4
354 C 3 PP22 0 13 17 5
355 C 3 PP22 A 1 38 23
356 C 3 PP22 B 1 5 23
357 C 3 PP22 B 1 0 0
358 E 1 PP23 0 1 10 1
359 E 1 PP23 0 2 27 2
360 E 1 PP23 0 3 73 5
361 E 1 PP23 0 4 90 4
362 E 2 PP24 0 1 20 1
363 E 2 PP24 0 2 24 2
364 E 2 PP24 0 3 (1) 85 4
365 E 2 PP24 0 3 (2) 56 4
366 E 2 PP24 0 4 48 4
367 E 2 PP24 0 5 4 6
368 E 3 PP25 0 1 30 1
372
Volume Context
(L) code
369 E 3 PP25 0 2 100 4
370 E 3 PP25 0 3 100 4
371 E 3 PP25 0 4 36 5
372 E 3 PP25 0 5 42 5
373 E 3 PP25 A 1 25 33
374 E 3 PP25 B 1 8 23
375 E 3 PP25 C 1 5 24
376 E 3 PP25 D 1 3 24
377 D 4 PP26 0 1 14 1
378 D 4 PP26 0 2 17 2
Int.
379 D 4 PP26 3 10 11
Camino
Ext.
380 D 4 PP26 3 11 11
Camino
381 D 4 PP26 0 4 4 4
382 D 4 PP26 A 1 5 4
383 D 4 PP26 B 1 0 31
384 A 2 4 0 1 193 1 surface A
385 A 2 4 0 2 340 2 surface A
386 A 2 4 0 2 0 0 surface A
387 A 2 4 0 3 66 2 surface B
388 A 2 4 0 4 206 2 surface B
389 A 2 4 0 4 10 0 surface B
400 A 2 4 0 5 190 3 Piso 1 C
401 A 2 4 0 6 99 4 fill C
402 A 2 4 0 7 104 3 Piso 2 C
403 A 2 4 0 8 250 5 fill D
404 A 2 4 0 9 200 11 Piso 3 D
405 A 2 4 A 1 199 30 fill B
406 A 2 4 B 1 140 30 fill B
407 A 2 4 C 1 0 27 Piso 1 B
408 A 2 4 D 1 6 30 Piso 2 C
409 A 2 4 D 2 78 33 Piso 2 C
410 A 2 4 D 3 41 33 Piso 2 C
411 A 2 4 D 4 96 33 Piso 2 C
412 A 2 4 D 5 20 30 Piso 2 C
413 A 2 4 E 1 8 21 Piso 2 C
414 A 2 4 F 1 10 23 fill C
415 A 2 4 G 1 15 23 Piso 2 C
416 A 2 4 G 2 95 30 Piso 2 C
417 A 2 4 G 3 94 33 Piso 2 C
418 A 2 4 G 4 10 33 Piso 2 C
419 A 2 4 G 5 15 33 Piso 2 C
420 A 2 4 H 1 0 30 Piso 2 C
421 A 2 4 I 1 3 23 Piso 2 C
422 A 2 4 J 1 0.8 34 Piso 2 C
423 A 2 4 K 1 55 34 Piso 2 C
373
Volume Context
(L) code
424 A 2 4 L 1 15 31 Piso 3 C
425 A 2 4 M 1 59 23 Piso 3 D
426 A 2 4 M 2 10 23 Piso 3 D
427 A 2 4 N 1 12 34 Piso 3 D
428 A 2 4 O norte 1 20 33 Piso 3 D
429 A 2 4 O sur 1 11.5 33 Piso 3 D
430 A 2 4 P 1 20 23 Piso 3 D
431 A 2 4 Q 1 7 23 Piso 3 D
432 A 2 4 R 1 0.3 24 Piso 3 D
433 A 2 4 S 1 2 25 Piso 3 D
434 A 2 4 T 1 6 33 Piso 3 D
435 A 2 4 T 2 3 33 Piso 3 D
436 A 2 4 U 1 45 23 Piso 3 D
437 A 2 4 V 1 65 23 Piso 3 D
438 A 2 4 W 1 2 21 Piso 3 D
439 A 2 4 X 1 0.6 21 Piso 3 D
440 A 2 4 Y 1 1.5 23 Piso 3 D
441 A 2 4 Z 1 3 23 Piso 3 D
442 A 2 4 AA 1 7 23 Piso 3 D
443 A 2 4 AB 1 7 33 fill D
444 A 2 4 AC 1 3.5 21 fill D
445 A 2 4 AD 1 3.7 21 fill D
446 A 2 4 AE 1 2.5 23 fill D
447 A 2 4 AF 1 107 23 fill D
448 A 2 4 AF 2 416 23 fill D
449 A 2 4 AF 3 48 23 fill D
450 A 2 4 AG 1 36 23 fill D
451 A 2 4 AH 1 40 23 fill D
452 A 2 4 AI 1 19 31 fill D
453 A 2 4 AJ 1 1.3 21 fill D
454 A 2 4 AK 1 2.5 21 fill D
455 A 2 4 AL 1 0.9 21 fill D
456 A 2 4 AM 1 110 24 fill D
457 A 2 4 AM 2 10 24 fill D
458 A 2 4 AM 3 30 24 fill D
459 A 2 4 AM 4 45 24 fill D
460 A 2 4 AN 1 10 30 fill D
461 A 2 4 AO 1 0.7 21 fill D
462 A 2 4 AP 1 15 23 fill D
463 A 2 4 AQ 1 10 33 fill D
464 A 2 4 AR 1 0.8 33 fill D
465 A 2 4 AS 1 0.4 23 fill D
466 A 2 4 AT 1 0.4 23 fill D
467 A 6 5 0 1 110 1 surface A
468 A 6 5 0 2 146 2 surface B
469 A 6 5 0 3 290 2 surface B
470 A 6 5 amb 4A 4 54 2 surface C
374
Volume Context
(L) code
471 A 6 5 amb 4A 5 66 3 Piso 1 C
472 A 6 5 amb 4A 6 527 4 fill C
473 A 6 5 amb 4B 4 108 2 fill C
474 A 6 5 amb 4B 5 43 11 fill C
475 A 6 5 0 7 146 3 Piso 2 C
476 A 6 5 0 8 157 11 Piso 3 C
477 A 6 5 0 9 260 4 fill D
478 A 6 5 A 1 (4) 91 33 fill C
479 A 6 5 B (4B) 1 0 30 Piso 1 C
480 A 6 5 C (4C) 1 0 21 fill C
481 A 6 5 D (4C) 1 8 23 fill C
482 A 6 5 D 2 0 0 fill C
483 A 6 5 E 1 5 23 Piso 2 C
484 A 6 5 F 1 0 31 Piso 3 C
485 A 6 5 G 1 0 23 Piso 3 C
486 A 6 5 H 1 3 23 fill D
487 A 6 5 H 2 0 0 fill D
488 A 6 5 I 1 0 30 fill D
489 A 6 5 J 1 22 23 fill D
490 A 6 5 J 2 41 23 fill D
491 A 6 5 K 1 0 23 fill D
492 A 6 5 L 1 55 27 fill D
493 A 6 5 L 2 0 27 fill D
494 A 6 5 L 3 0 27 fill D
495 A 6 5 M 1 12 23 fill D
496 A 6 5 N 1 0 30 fill D
497 A 6 5 O 1 10 30 fill D
498 A 6 5 O 2 0 0 fill D
499 A 6 5 Q 1 45 31 fill D
500 A 6 5 Q 2 0 0 fill D
501 A 6 5 R 1 7 30 fill D
502 A 6 5 S 1 17 23 fill D
503 A 6 5 T 1 0 30 fill D
504 A 6 5 U 1 0 30 fill D
505 A 6 5 V-W 1 0 23 fill D
506 A 6 5 X 1 80 23 fill D
507 A 6 5 X 2 0 0 fill D
508 A 6 5 Y 1 40 23 fill D
509 A 6 5 Z 1 10 24 fill D
510 A 6 5 AA 1 0 24 fill D
511 A 6 5 AB 1 3 24 fill D
512 A 6 5 AC 1 0 24 fill D
513 A 6 5 AD 1 6 24 fill D
514 A 6 5 AD 2 0 0 fill D
515 A 6 5 AE 1 7 24 fill D
516 A 6 5 AF 1 0 0 fill D
517 A 6 5 AG 1 0 24 fill D
375
Volume Context
(L) code
518 A 6 5 AH 1 23 24 fill D
519 A 6 5 AH 2 0 0 fill D
520 A 6 5 AI 1 3 24 fill D
521 A 6 5 AJ 1 0 24 fill D
522 A 6 5 AK 1 0 24 fill D
523 A 6 5 AL 1 0 24 fill D
524 A 6 5 AM 1 0 24 fill D
525 A 6 5 AN 1 0 24 fill D
526 A 6 5 AO 1 7 27 fill D
527 A 6 5 AO 2 0 0 fill D
528 A 6 5 AP 1 0 24 fill D
529 A 6 5 AQ 1 4 24 fill D
530 A 6 5 AR 1 0 24 fill D
531 A 6 5 AS 1 0 24 fill D
532 A 4 6 0 1 80 1 surface A
533 A 4 6 0 2 60 2 surface B
534 A 4 6 0 3 19 3 Piso 1 C
535 A 4 6 0 4 38 3 Piso 2 C
536 A 4 6 F 1 0 0 fill D
537 A 4 6 0 6 0 3 Piso 3 C
538 A 4 6 0 7 52 4 fill D
539 A 4 6 0 8 100 4 fill D
540 A 4 6 0 8 niv 2 60 4 fill D
541 A 4 6 0 9 16 9 fill D
542 A 4 6 0 10 21 9 fill D
543 A 4 6 0 11 17 5 fill D
544 A 4 6 A 1 0 26 fill B
545 A 4 6 B 1 0 21 Piso 1 B
546 A 4 6 C 1 6 23 fill D
547 A 4 6 D 1 0 23 fill D
548 A 4 6 E 1 19 33 fill D
549 A 4 6 F 1 5 33 fill D
550 A 4 6 G 1 21 23 fill D
551 A 4 6 G 2 16 23 fill D
552 A 4 6 G 3 20 23 fill D
553 A 4 6 G 4 87 23 fill D
554 A 4 6 H 1 130 23 fill D
555 A 4 6 H 2 53 23 fill D
556 A 4 PP27 0 1 110 1
557 A 4 PP27 0 2 107 2
558 A 4 PP27 0 3 118 2
559 A 4 PP27 0 4 44 3
560 A 4 PP27 0 5 115 5
561 A 4 PP27 A 1 95 31
562 A 4 PP27 B 1 0 30
563 A 4 PP27 C 1 48 24
564 A 4 PP27 D 1 13 24
376
Volume Context
(L) code
565 A 4 PP27 E 1 43 24
566 A 4 PP27 F 1 2 24
567 A 4 PP27 G 1 5 24
568 A 4 PP28 0 1 76 1
569 A 4 PP28 0 2 58 2
570 A 4 PP28 0 3 90 2
571 A 4 PP28 0 4 153 2
572 A 4 PP28 0 5 221 24
573 A 5 PP29 0 1 81 1
574 A 5 PP29 0 2 48 2
575 A 5 PP29 0 3 66 2
576 A 5 PP29 0 4 45 2
577 A 5 PP29 0 5 50 2
578 A 5 PP29 0 6 67 4
579 A 5 PP29 0 7 12 3
580 A 5 PP29 0 8 37 3
581 A 5 PP29 0 9 32 4
582 A 5 PP29 A 1 68 23
583 A 5 PP29 C 1 23 30
584 A 5 PP29 D 1 13 23
585 A 5 PP29 E 1 2 24
586 A 5 PP29 F 1 0 24
587 A 5 PP29 G 1 2 24
587 A 5 PP29 G 1 0 0
588 A 5 PP29 I 1 0 0
589 A 5 PP29 J 1 15 29
590 A 7 PP30 0 1 140 34
591 A 7 PP30 0 2 40 1
592 A 7 PP30 0 3 100 4
593 A 7 PP30 0 4 90 4
594 A 7 PP30 0 5 100 4
595 A 7 PP30 0 6 50 4
596 A 7 PP30 0 7 87 4
597 A 7 PP30 0 8 0 6
598 A 7 PP30 A 1 0 30
599 A 7 PP30 B 1 43 30
600 A 7 PP30 C 1 0 33
601 A 7 PP30 D 1 24 23
602 A 7 PP30 D 2 0 23
603 A 7 PP30 E 1 0 24
604 A 7 PP30 F 1 4 25
605 A 7 PP30 G 1 0 0
606 A 7 PP30 H 1 0 0
607 A 6 PP31 0 1 55 1
608 A 6 PP31 0 2 46 2
609 A 6 PP31 0 3 74 2
610 A 6 PP31 0 4 11 3
377
Volume Context
(L) code
611 A 6 PP31 0 5 44 4
612 A 6 PP31 0 6 6 3
613 A 6 PP31 0 7 81 4
614 A 6 PP31 0 8 38 11
615 A 6 PP31 0 9 64 5
616 A 6 PP31 0 10 30 6
617 A 6 PP31 A 1 31 29
618 A 6 PP31 B 1 0 28
619 A 6 PP31 C 1 2 21
620 A 6 PP31 D 1 7 33
621 A 6 PP31 E 1 0 21
622 A 6 PP31 F 1 5 24
623 A 6 PP31 G 1 16 24
624 A 6 PP31 H 1 0 24
625 A 6 PP31 I 1 0 24
626 A 6 PP31 J 1 0 24
627 A 6 PP31 K 1 0 24
628 A 6 PP31 L 1 4 33
629 A 2 PP32 0 1 50 1
630 A 2 PP32 0 2 40 2
631 A 2 PP32 0 3 60 2
632 A 2 PP32 0 4 41 2
633 A 2 PP32 0 5 44 4
634 A 2 PP32 B 1 20 23
635 A 2 PP32 B 2 11 23
636 A 2 PP32 C 1 44 23
637 A 2 PP32 C 2 23 23
638 A 2 PP32 D 1 40 23
639 A 2 PP32 D 2 45 23
640 A 2 PP32 D 3 115 23
641 A 2 PP32 D 4 60 23
642 A 2 PP32 E 1 0 24
643 A 2 PP32 F 1 0 24
644 A 2 PP32 G 1 0 24
645 A 2 PP33 0 0 0 0
646 A 2 PP33 0 1 55 1
647 A 2 PP33 0 2 nor 59 4
648 A 2 PP33 0 2 sur 15 4
649 A 2 PP33 0 3 nor 38 4
650 A 2 PP33 0 3 sur 10 3
651 A 2 PP33 0 4 nor 106 4
652 A 2 PP33 0 4 sur 60 4
653 A 2 PP33 0 5 60 11
654 A 2 PP33 A 1 23 31
655 A 2 PP33 B 1 7 23
656 A 2 PP33 C 1 10 25
657 A 2 PP33 D 1 4 30
378
Volume Context
(L) code
658 A 2 PP33 E 1 96 23
659 A 2 PP33 F 1 0.5 23
660 A 2 PP33 G 1 0.4 23
661 A 2 PP33 H 1 2.3 23
662 A 2 PP33 I 1 1 33
663 A 2 PP33 J 1 23 27
664 A 2 PP33 K 1 70 23
665 A 2 PP33 K 2 79 23
666 A 2 PP33 L 1 1 23
667 A 2 PP33 M 1 9 23
668 A 2 PP33 N 1 0.5 23
669 A 2 PP33 O 1 10 21
379
Appendix C
BOTANICAL DATA
380
Key
Context- Corresponds with context number in excavation data table (Appendix B)

Bag- Cases with bag number are soil samples. Cases with no bag number represent
excavated material (from ¼” screens), sometimes several bags from the same context
combined.
Total plant parts and plant species-Values are counts of all whole and partial identified
plant parts.
381
Table A.2. Botanical data 1
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
1 51 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 42 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
2 43 27 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 81 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
4 673 3 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 2 11
5 122 33 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1
5 124 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 170 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
6 757 5 105 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 8 1 1 0 13
7 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 65 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
9 44 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
9 71 4 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10 121 28 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
10 670 0 128 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 14 4 0 8 9
11 125 44 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0
12 222 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 174 20 679 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
14 223 89 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 1 0
14 54 0 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
15 221 35 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
15 44 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 325 8 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
17 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 326 18 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
18 327 51 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 1
18 54 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
19 478 0 40 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 7
20 394 71 0 15 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 18 0 0 0
20 224 0 78 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 4
21 393 26 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
22 392 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
23 391 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 390 33 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
27 24 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1
34 79 0 43 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
382
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
37 102 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 3
38 476 42 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 0
38 236 0 64 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 7 1 0 0 5
39 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
40 478 7 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
40 70 0 12 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 1 1
42 74 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
43 477 102 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 5 0
43 100 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 10 1 0 3 4
44 19 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 32 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 66 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
46 16 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 108 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 109 32 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
48 523 31 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
49 111 59 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
49 9 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
50 161 87 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 3
50 448 180 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 16
51 204 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 205 11 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
51 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 207 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 468 214 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 8 12
53 272 12 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
53 273 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 274 8 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
53 56 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
54 33 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 34 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
55 132 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
56 35 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
56 313 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 11
57 36 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 110 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
59 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
60 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 18 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
383
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
61 112 567 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 26
61 1812 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67
62 159 70 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 35 1
62 156 255 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
63 160 8 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 206 14 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
64 268 49 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 2
64 1540 459 6 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 30 72
65 310 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 1 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
66 208 48 14 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0
66 269 10 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
66 252 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9
67 262 410 20 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 19
67 270 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
67 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 271 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
68 31 90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1
69 311 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
69 312 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 1 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
70 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 361 6 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
72 366 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 4 83 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
78 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
80 142 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
82 143 30 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1
82 27 61 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 42 74 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
85 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
86 244 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 51 38 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
87 293 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
384
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
87 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 246 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
88 139 177 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 4
89 290 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 4 121 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 345 23 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
90 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 346 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 347 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 37 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
95 0 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 140 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
103 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 194 47 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1
105 279 221 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 13
106 17 114 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0
107 296 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 344 8 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
109 403 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 402 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 432 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 2 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
112 436 2 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 438 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 442 1 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 13 166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
117 510 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 489 1 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 494 5 10 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 496 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 9 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
123 204 0 90 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
385
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
125 710 0 174 0 4 1 5 0 7 0 14 24 0 11 2

126 20 0 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 8 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
128 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
129 376 167 35 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 0 0 11
130 385 83 37 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 8
131 891 167 110 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 9 0 0 20
132 154 19 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5
133 220 39 64 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3
134 21 37 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 16 115 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137 22 12 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
138 10 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 80 24 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
140 614 128 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 12 4
140 59 43 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2
141 613 784 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0
142 7 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
145 235 0 31 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
146 45 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
148 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 53 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
150 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
151 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
154 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
158 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
159 19 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
160 18 50 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
162 41 132 27 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
163 785 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 786 42 7 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 21 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
164 793 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
164 213 105 20 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 4
165 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
167 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 0 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
170 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
171 17 84 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
172 10 95 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
173 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
386
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
174 21 105 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
175 151 119 38 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
176 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
177 0 265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
178 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
179 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
180 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 16 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
183 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
184 8 32 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 73 13 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
186 19 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
187 40 25 38 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
188 45 59 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
189 1 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
190 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
191 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
193 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
194 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
197 96 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6
198 4 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
199 102 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 3
200 605 304 23 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 32
201 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
203 4 36 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 58 104 27 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
205 212 192 60 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 5
206 278 165 76 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 0 5
207 887 159 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 20 0
207 886 120 97 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 0 0 18
208 362 57 135 0 7 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 7
209 225 25 69 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3
210 279 58 106 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 3
211 332 22 65 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 7
212 8 110 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
213 14 39 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
214 10 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
217 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
218 28 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
219 130 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
220 1042 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
220 661 19 31 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
387
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
221 163 0 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 5
222 169 104 28 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
223 407 25 33 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11
224 70 15 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
225 1103 798 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 28
225 57 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
229 16 186 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
230 69 280 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
231 0 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
232 7 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
233 6 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
234 849 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 10 92 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
235 107 29 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
236 400 129 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 7
237 1095 121 288 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19
238 906 436 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 10 0
238 53 30 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
239 916 436 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 0 18 1
239 751 65 50 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 10
240 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
241 3 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 972 74 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1
242 266 77 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7
243 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
244 329 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
245 984 49 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1
245 215 205 44 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
246 242 16 44 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2
247 993 87 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 21 0 3 0
247 96 14 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
248 1016 13 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
248 1018 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
248 145 130 25 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
249 404 139 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11
250 5 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
251 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
252 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
253 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
254 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
255 308 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 6 5
258 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
259 2 44 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
260 57 55 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
261 91 25 35 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
262 1173 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 1181 382 8 17 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 20 0 0 0
263 864 25 197 1 6 1 0 0 1 0 1 21 1 3 15
264 1182 248 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 2
264 275 0 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1
265 1179 5 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
265 1180 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
266 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
267 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
268 46 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
269 6 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 174 27 39 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 5
271 322 42 90 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
272 15 12 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
273 167 22 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
274 112 18 42 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
275 11 8 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
276 31 21 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
277 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
278 1152 45 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0
278 809 126 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 9
279 1154 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
279 330 14 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3
280 1192 42 8 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 1
280 24 8 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
281 42 131 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
282 3 130 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
283 1299 35 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
283 2 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
285 40 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
286 1209 160 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
286 7 33 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
288 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
290 25 22 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
291 182 0 182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
292 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
293 1235 392 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
294 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
296 25 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
389
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
297 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
298 1 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
299 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 54 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
301 21 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
302 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
304 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 1319 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 0 549 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 1326 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
306 0 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
307 18 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
308 1369 15 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0
309 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
310 1371 16 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1
311 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
313 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 1241 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
315 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
316 1247 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
318 12 44 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
319 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
320 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
321 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
322 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
323 10 57 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 1360 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
324 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
325 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
328 972 1163 131 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 6
329 17 81 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
330 3 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 1442 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 48 78 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
333 217 209 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 3
334 1492 144 9 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2
334 284 103 69 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 10
335 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
336 322 165 80 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 5
337 1515 45 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 3 1
390
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
337 1516 60 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 9 0
337 69 29 31 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1
338 1555 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
338 125 13 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
339 18 25 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
340 9 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0
341 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
342 1568 77 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
342 88 106 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
346 4 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
347 77 47 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
348 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
349 21 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
350 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
351 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
352 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
354 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
355 90 32 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
357 75 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
358 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
359 20 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
360 2 229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
361 1411 24 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
361 6 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
362 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
363 1473 2 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
363 1 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
364 71 255 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
365 1525 5 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
365 53 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1
366 6 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
368 0 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
369 1 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
370 18 176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
371 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
372 54 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
373 1585 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
373 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
374 16 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
377 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
378 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
379 1613 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
391
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
379 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
380 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
381 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 1609 3 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
383 1617 119 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 7 0 7 4
384 1626 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
384 221 141 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 11
385 1660 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
385 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
386 133 53 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
387 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1718 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
389 2417 54 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 1
389 5 44 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1784 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1872 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0
401 52 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
402 2013 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
402 70 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
403 2014 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
403 42 57 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
404 2122 32 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2
404 2180 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
404 3 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
405 1631 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
406 1708 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
406 59 59 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
408 1782 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
408 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
409 1781 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
409 30 56 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
410 1874 11 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
411 1875 6 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 46 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
412 1876 1 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 136 106 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4
413 1783 16 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 48 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 1873 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
414 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
392
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
415 1957 22 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
415 544 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 20
416 1953 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
417 1954 61 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
417 856 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23
418 1959 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 241 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
419 1958 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
419 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1871 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1955 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
421 1960 26 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
421 91 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4
423 1956 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
424 2016 56 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2
424 117 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
425 2015 60 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1
425 210 73 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
426 2080 15 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
426 55 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
427 2083 14 20 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
427 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
428 2085 4 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
428 16 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429 2081 5 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 2082 2 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 27 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
431 2084 15 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
433 2086 72 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1
434 2118 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
434 12 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
435 2182 3 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
436 2126 104 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 2
436 38 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
437 2127 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0
438 2121 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
439 2123 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
440 2125 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
441 2124 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
442 2181 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
393
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
443 2183 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
443 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
444 2184 66 4 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 0 0 0
445 2185 54 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0
446 2186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
447 2315 110 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
447 28 38 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
448 2317 10 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
448 222 90 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
449 2372 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
449 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
450 2265 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0
450 8 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
451 2268 15 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
451 207 15 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
452 2267 59 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
452 1 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
453 2266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
454 2272 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0
455 2270 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
456 2269 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
457 2264 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
458 2316 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
458 1 58 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
459 2314 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
460 2271 103 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2
460 109 49 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
461 2263 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
462 2319 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
463 2318 7 14 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
463 6 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
464 2313 7 56 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
466 2311 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
468 1666 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
468 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
469 1667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
470 1833 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 1
471 1901 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 68 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
472 1903 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
472 761 0 136 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 2 1 1 21
473 1834 282 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 0
394
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
473 439 1 85 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 6
474 80 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
475 2042 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2044 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2045 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
475 100 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
476 2098 24 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
476 2133 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0
476 78 21 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
477 2335 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
477 112 0 20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
478 1763 145 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6
478 1119 23 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 51
479 1899 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
480 1900 20 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
481 1902 217 4 11 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
481 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
482 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
483 2043 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
484 2096 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
485 2097 42 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0
486 2142 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
486 17 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
488 2140 4 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
489 2212 97 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 1
489 232 20 9 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4
490 2378 99 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1
490 163 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
491 2213 6 35 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
492 2141 31 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
492 20 11 14 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
493 38 5 26 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
494 2209 35 13 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
495 2211 165 20 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2
495 53 23 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
496 2210 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
497 2336 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499 2280 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
499 366 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
500 2333 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
501 2331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
501 2332 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
395
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
502 2281 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
502 56 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
503 2282 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
504 2284 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
505 2283 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 2334 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 3 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
507 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
508 2451 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0
508 467 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 32
509 2491 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
510 2456 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
511 2492 48 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0
511 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 2493 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
513 2494 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
513 2 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
515 2453 29 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1
517 2454 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1
518 2455 22 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 0
518 74 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 2
520 2452 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
521 2496 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
522 2497 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
523 2498 15 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
524 2458 24 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
525 2457 26 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
526 2460 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0
526 47 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
527 2515 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
528 2499 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
529 2518 8 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
529 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
530 2516 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
531 2517 16 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
532 1643 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
532 6 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1649 61 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
533 4 31 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
534 1655 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
534 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
535 1703 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
396
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
535 7 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1701 14 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
536 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
537 1704 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 2
538 1702 67 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0
538 349 30 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 9
539 1699 104 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 2
539 2630 195 209 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 22 31 0 8 75
540 1749 298 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 0 1 2
540 2716 26 160 0 2 0 4 9 5 4 58 74 0 53 44
541 315 0 49 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 9
542 1880 413 3 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 11 14
542 513 0 53 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 1 14
545 1652 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
546 1705 203 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 34 0 0 2
546 58 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 1
548 1697 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 1698 69 78 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1
548 61 25 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1
549 1700 36 32 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 13 0 1 0
550 1812 97 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 2
550 210 14 84 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5
551 1813 100 14 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 0 3
551 80 14 14 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3
552 1814 12 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
552 163 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 4 0 2 4
553 1816 234 4 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 10
553 1012 0 140 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 26
554 1815 512 10 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 15 57 2 39 6
554 2711 56 249 0 9 0 21 7 7 8 68 48 0 148 60
555 545 36 71 1 1 0 5 1 1 1 13 2 0 71 8
556 1762 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
556 513 531 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 15
557 96 319 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
558 1847 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
558 77 190 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3
559 1917 15 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
559 139 161 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 5
560 2052 10 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
561 1918 4 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
561 806 714 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 28
562 1919 3 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
397
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
563 1985 26 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1
563 282 471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 20 8
564 2051 8 74 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0
564 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
565 2152 78 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1
565 417 40 30 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 8 0 2 10
566 2108 15 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
566 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
567 10 33 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 1996 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 99 63 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
571 2033 24 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
571 132 62 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3
572 2032 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
572 80 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4
573 2168 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
574 2093 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
576 2171 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 2236 9 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 11 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
578 2239 11 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
578 145 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5
581 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
582 2169 43 27 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0
582 536 0 70 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 1 57 0 1 11
583 2170 660 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 18
583 756 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
584 7 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
585 36 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 17 0
586 2237 97 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 17 1
588 2238 121 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 0
588 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
589 2240 17 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
589 7 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 2358 47 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 1
590 458 204 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 14 0 2 14
591 2359 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
591 74 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
592 2360 11 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
592 669 45 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 24
593 2394 36 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1
593 806 87 45 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 9 3 0 0 27
398
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
594 2395 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
594 286 29 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 9
595 2487 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0
595 90 13 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1
596 2488 57 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 1
596 168 22 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
598 2361 199 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 7
599 2489 6 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
599 143 68 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 4
600 2490 287 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 4
601 2524 30 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
601 92 8 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
602 2553 94 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2
602 97 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
603 2523 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
604 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
606 2552 39 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 1
607 4 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
609 2468 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
609 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
610 2529 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0
610 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
611 2530 30 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
611 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
612 2531 10 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
613 2532 21 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
613 18 10 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
614 2536 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 2592 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 25 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
616 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
618 2469 75 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0
619 2533 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
620 2535 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0
620 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
621 2534 7 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0
622 2590 18 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
623 2594 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
623 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
624 2595 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
625 2591 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
626 2593 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
399
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
627 2589 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0
628 2596 4 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
628 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
629 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
630 2613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
631 2614 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
631 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
632 2615 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
633 2693 28 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
633 84 13 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2
634 2616 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2
635 2692 277 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 120 0 0 3
635 28 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
636 2695 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 2697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
638 2696 167 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 7
638 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
639 2694 14 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
639 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
640 300 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
641 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
642 2699 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
643 2698 11 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0
644 2691 20 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
645 54 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
646 2647 64 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 1
646 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
647 2653 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
647 29 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
648 26 28 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1
649 2654 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
649 21 4 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0
650 2649 51 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0
650 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
651 2730 52 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4 14 0 0 0
651 223 0 18 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
652 2651 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0
652 22 23 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
653 2732 140 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 31 0 2 0
653 113 28 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
654 2652 15 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0
400
Canavalia maritima
Phaseolus vulgaris
Phaseolus lunatus
Persea americana
Lucuma obovata
Zea mays kernel

Psidium guajava
Total Phaseolus
Total plant parts
other Fabaceae
Zea mays cob

Prosopis sp.
Annona sp.
Inga feuillei
Context
Carbon
Bag
654 7 57 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
655 2731 181 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 0 1 0
655 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
656 2728 69 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 1 0
656 5 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
657 2726 103 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 10 3
658 2733 54 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 1 0
658 348 7 32 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
659 2729 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
660 2727 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
661 2768 22 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0
662 2770 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2766 157 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 1 7
663 2769 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
663 2804 67 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 1
663 11 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
664 2764 144 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 26 0 1 1
664 7 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 2763 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
665 353 6 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
666 2767 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
667 2771 54 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 2
667 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
668 2762 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
669 2765 204 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 3 3
669 4 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401
Gossypium barbadense
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0
2 42 0 0 0 1 0 1 13 1 0 0 50 0
2 43 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
4 539 10 562 0 0 14 19 3 0 0 0 0
5 122 8 5 14 2 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0
5 124 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 170 5 6 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 548 59 620 0 0 4 2 0 2 0 0 0
7 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 52 0
9 44 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
9 30 0 31 0 0 0 8 1 0 0 6 0
10 121 0 12 12 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 329 139 485 1 0 8 3 0 1 0 2 0
11 125 23 0 24 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 222 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 174 15 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 223 2 53 56 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 40 0 41 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 221 0 10 10 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 29 29 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 325 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
18 326 0 5 5 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 327 10 0 11 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 40 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 416 7 430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 394 0 7 7 2 0 22 2 0 0 0 0 0
20 137 0 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 393 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 392 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 391 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 390 24 0 26 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 16 1 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
34 22 2 25 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
37 0 4 7 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0
38 476 0 5 5 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
38 141 0 146 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 478 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
40 40 0 42 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
42 55 0 57 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0
43 477 0 76 81 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 64 0 71 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 66 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 108 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
48 109 25 0 27 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 487 3 508 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0
49 111 54 1 58 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
49 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 161 55 3 68 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 422 0 442 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 205 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 207 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 280 3 303 125 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
53 272 0 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 273 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
53 52 0 54 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
54 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 128 0 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 35 8 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 300 0 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57 36 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 110 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
403
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
59 0 22 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 16 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 112 487 4 517 4 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0
172
61 15 1810 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8
62 159 15 1 52 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0
62 145 5 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 160 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 206 0 0 0 2 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0
64 268 26 0 39 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
142
64 1 1526 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3
65 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 208 0 0 1 36 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 269 4 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 241 0 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 262 373 0 400 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 270 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 271 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 27 1 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 361 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0
72 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
78 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
79 15 0 16 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
80 142 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 69 0 71 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
82 143 14 0 15 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
404
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
82 14 2 16 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
83 34 0 35 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
85 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
86 244 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 41 0 43 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
87 293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 246 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 108 0 113 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0
89 290 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
89 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
90 345 21 0 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
92 346 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 35 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 194 40 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105 233 0 246 0 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0
106 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
107 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 344 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 402 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 432 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
112 436 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 438 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 12 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
405
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
118 489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 494 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 496 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
123 96 0 99 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
125 92 6 111 0 0 331 1 0 0 0 0 0
126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
129 246 64 321 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 0
130 293 42 343 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
131 556 170 746 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 0 0
132 123 10 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
133 126 20 149 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
134 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
138 6 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 64 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 614 93 3 112 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 45 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
141 613 0 0 0 16 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
145 179 19 202 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
146 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 35 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
159 18 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
160 10 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
162 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
163 785 5 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 786 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 20 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
164 793 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
164 162 9 175 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
171 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
174 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
175 102 0 106 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 40 0 41 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
186 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
188 28 0 29 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
189 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
197 89 0 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
198 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
199 95 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 505 0 549 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0
201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 20 0 21 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
205 126 3 134 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0
206 168 1 174 0 0 1 9 1 0 0 0 0
207 887 7 38 65 2 3 8 7 1 0 0 0 0
207 695 6 719 0 0 1 24 1 0 0 0 0
407
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
208 167 3 177 1 0 12 9 3 0 0 0 0

209 115 0 120 0 0 17 3 0 0 0 0 0
210 111 0 118 0 0 17 13 2 0 0 0 0
211 239 0 246 0 0 2 4 3 0 0 0 0
212 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
214 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
218 4 1 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
219 116 0 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
220 1042 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
220 602 0 619 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0
221 137 0 142 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
222 133 0 135 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
223 355 3 369 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
224 55 0 57 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
225 1103 616 68 713 2 0 54 0 1 0 0 0 0
225 44 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
229 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
230 56 2 60 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
231 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
232 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
233 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
234 849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
235 101 0 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
236 242 56 305 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0
237 691 60 770 0 0 17 1 11 0 0 0 0
238 906 14 260 284 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
238 0 13 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 916 21 0 40 0 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 670 3 683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 972 31 30 62 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 208 4 219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
243 0 58 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
244 250 2 255 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
245 984 12 21 36 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
245 150 7 161 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
408
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
246 186 1 190 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

247 993 4 13 20 6 1 17 0 1 0 0 0 0
247 57 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
248 1016 1 4 5 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
248 1018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
248 110 0 114 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
249 376 8 395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
251 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
255 295 0 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
259 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
260 44 0 46 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
261 49 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
262 1173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 1181 8 265 273 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 545 4 567 0 0 48 9 0 0 0 0 0
264 1182 86 94 182 8 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0
264 168 0 169 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
265 1179 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
265 1180 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
268 40 0 42 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 100 18 123 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0
271 152 68 224 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0
272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
273 70 24 95 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
274 62 0 65 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
275 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
276 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
277 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
278 1152 0 18 18 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
278 705 0 716 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
279 1154 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
279 295 0 300 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
409
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
280 1192 5 8 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
280 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
281 27 5 34 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
282 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
283 1299 0 21 22 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
283 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
285 32 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
286 1209 0 130 130 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
290 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
292 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
293 1235 361 1 387 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
296 24 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 50 0 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 20 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 1319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 1326 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
307 16 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
308 1369 0 0 1 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
309 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
310 1371 10 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 1241 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
316 1247 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
410
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
321 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 1360 2 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
325 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
328 133 595 734 0 0 0 86 1 0 0 1 0
329 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
330 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
331 1442 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 0 39 39 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
333 95 80 178 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0
334 1492 119 1 123 2 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
334 196 0 206 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
335 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
336 203 4 215 0 0 12 2 0 0 0 0 0
337 1515 16 13 33 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
337 1516 1 8 18 2 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
337 29 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
338 1555 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
338 72 9 83 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
339 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
340 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
341 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
342 1568 0 73 73 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
342 72 8 83 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
346 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
347 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
348 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
349 20 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
351 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
355 85 0 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
357 70 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
359 20 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
360 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
411
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
361 1411 10 0 11 10 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
361 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0
362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
363 1473 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
364 45 0 47 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0
365 1525 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
365 45 0 46 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
366 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0
368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
369 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
370 17 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
372 45 2 49 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
373 1585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
373 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
374 15 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
379 1613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
379 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 1609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
383 1617 91 0 102 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0
384 1626 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
384 205 0 217 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
385 1660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
386 121 0 125 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
387 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
388 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
389 2417 20 0 21 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0
389 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1784 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
401 1872 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
401 42 0 44 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0
402 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
402 55 0 57 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0
403 2014 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
403 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 1 0 0 0 0
404 2122 18 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
404 2180 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
404 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
405 1631 16 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406 1708 20 0 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
406 52 0 56 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
408 1782 46 0 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
408 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
409 1781 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
409 20 0 21 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
410 1874 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 1875 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 45 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 1876 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 126 0 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 1783 10 0 10 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
413 46 0 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
414 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
415 1957 15 0 16 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
415 515 0 536 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
416 1953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
417 1954 53 0 58 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
417 828 0 852 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
418 1959 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 229 0 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
419 1958 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1871 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1955 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
421 1960 13 0 14 8 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
421 76 0 81 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
423 1956 5 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424 2016 42 0 44 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424 113 0 117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
425 2015 20 2 23 5 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0
413
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
425 181 0 188 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0

426 2080 0 1 1 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
426 50 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
427 2083 5 0 5 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
427 15 0 16 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
428 2085 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
428 0 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429 2081 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 2082 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
430 26 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
431 2084 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
433 2086 33 0 34 9 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 2118 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
435 2182 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 2126 55 5 62 3 2 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 22 0 23 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0
437 2127 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
438 2121 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
439 2123 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
440 2125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
441 2124 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
442 2181 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
443 2183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
443 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
444 2184 0 0 0 4 2 11 0 1 1 0 0 0
445 2185 0 0 0 8 0 7 3 1 0 0 0 0
446 2186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
447 2315 0 9 9 83 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0
447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
448 2317 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
448 188 0 193 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0
449 2372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
450 2265 0 0 0 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
450 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
451 2268 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
451 178 0 183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
452 2267 40 0 43 0 0 8 2 0 0 0 0 0
414
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
452 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
453 2266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
454 2272 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
455 2270 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
456 2269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
457 2264 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
458 2316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
459 2314 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
460 2271 34 0 36 10 1 48 0 0 0 0 0 0
460 105 0 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
461 2263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
462 2319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
463 2318 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
463 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0
464 2313 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
466 2311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
468 1666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
468 51 1 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
469 1667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
470 1833 8 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 1901 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 56 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472 1903 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472 574 0 596 2 0 2 4 1 0 2 0 0
473 1834 0 2 2 11 3 224 0 0 0 0 0 0
473 217 0 223 2 0 4 1 108 0 0 0 0
474 67 0 70 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
475 2042 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2044 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2045 55 35 91 1 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 71 0 74 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 2098 0 0 0 1 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 2133 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 52 1 55 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
477 2335 8 0 8 6 1 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
477 86 0 89 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
478 1763 114 4 126 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
103
478 13 1094 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0
479 1899 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
415
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
480 1900 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
481 1902 41 0 44 9 2 129 0 0 0 0 0 0
481 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0
482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
483 2043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
484 2096 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 0
485 2097 1 7 8 1 13 9 1 0 0 0 0 0
486 2142 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
486 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
488 2140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
489 2212 63 3 67 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
489 194 17 215 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
490 2378 45 4 50 2 1 17 1 0 0 0 0 0
490 136 13 151 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
491 2213 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
492 2141 20 0 22 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
493 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
494 2209 0 0 0 1 1 9 0 1 0 0 0 0
495 2211 110 0 112 7 0 18 3 0 0 0 0 0
495 36 0 37 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
496 2210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
497 2336 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
499 2280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499 345 0 355 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
500 2333 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
501 2331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
501 2332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
502 2281 12 0 13 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
502 50 0 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
503 2282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
504 2284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
505 2283 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 2334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
507 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
508 2451 0 3 4 2 1 28 0 0 0 0 0 0
508 383 1 416 0 0 35 1 1 0 0 0 0
509 2491 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
510 2456 2 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
416
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
511 2492 0 16 16 2 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 0
511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 2493 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
513 2494 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
515 2453 12 5 18 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
517 2454 25 0 26 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
518 2455 0 1 2 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0
518 48 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
520 2452 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
521 2496 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
522 2497 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
523 2498 0 0 0 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
524 2458 1 1 2 8 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
525 2457 0 2 2 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
526 2460 0 0 0 6 0 20 24 0 0 0 0 0
526 45 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
527 2515 0 0 0 3 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0
528 2499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
529 2518 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0
529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
530 2516 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
531 2517 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
532 1643 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
532 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
533 1649 37 0 39 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
534 1655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
535 1703 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
535 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1701 0 1 1 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
537 1704 45 0 47 7 0 15 0 0 0 1 0 0
538 1702 0 4 4 6 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0
538 295 0 304 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
539 1699 68 0 70 8 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0
198
539 218 2284 1 0 29 10 0 0 0 0 0
3
540 1749 79 166 248 14 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0
540 1655 444 2196 6 0 141 10 0 0 0 0 0
417
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
541 247 1 257 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

542 1880 204 61 290 8 0 10 0 0 1 0 0 0
542 421 8 444 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 0
545 1652 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
546 1705 64 64 130 8 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0
546 35 4 48 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0
548 1697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 1698 45 2 48 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
548 36 2 39 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
549 1700 0 9 10 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
550 1812 58 5 65 3 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
550 111 3 119 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
551 1813 56 10 69 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
551 50 4 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
552 1814 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
552 112 1 119 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
553 1816 195 9 214 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
553 825 0 852 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0
554 1815 64 192 301 15 1 41 1 0 0 0 0 0
554 1680 78 1966 8 0 251 7 0 4 0 0 0
555 280 4 363 26 0 54 1 0 1 0 0 0
556 1762 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0
556 378 46 439 0 0 1 7 4 0 0 1 0
557 77 2 83 0 0 0 4 1 0 3 0 0
558 1847 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
558 57 1 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
559 1917 8 0 8 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
559 115 0 121 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0
560 2052 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
561 1918 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
561 754 2 785 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 0
562 1919 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
563 1985 20 0 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
563 245 1 274 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
564 2051 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
564 20 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
565 2152 60 5 66 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
565 283 57 352 0 0 2 2 2 0 5 0 0
566 2108 1 0 2 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
566 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
570 1996 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
570 92 0 95 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
571 2033 9 2 11 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0
571 87 0 95 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0
572 2032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
572 62 0 68 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
573 2168 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
574 2093 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
576 2171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 2236 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
578 2239 6 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
578 131 1 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
581 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
582 2169 0 12 13 5 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 0
582 370 3 385 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0
583 2170 604 17 639 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
583 738 1 754 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
585 0 4 21 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0
586 2237 19 29 66 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
588 2238 0 43 43 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
589 2240 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
589 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
590 2358 26 6 33 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
590 345 33 394 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0
591 2359 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
591 63 0 66 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0
592 2360 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
592 562 6 592 1 0 1 18 1 0 7 0 0
593 2394 18 0 19 6 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
593 687 10 724 0 0 1 21 0 0 0 0 0
594 2395 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
594 195 13 217 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0
595 2487 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0
595 45 12 58 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
596 2488 20 9 30 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
596 68 60 131 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0
419
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
598 2361 178 0 186 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

599 2489 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
599 84 6 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
600 2490 160 0 164 14 2 37 0 0 0 0 0 0
601 2524 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 0
601 45 13 59 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
602 2553 46 12 60 3 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
602 0 15 15 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
603 2523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
604 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
606 2552 12 0 13 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 0 0
607 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
609 2468 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
610 2529 2 0 3 1 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0
610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
611 2530 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
611 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
612 2531 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
613 2532 3 0 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
613 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
614 2536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 2592 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 20 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
618 2469 5 0 5 5 2 38 1 0 0 0 0 0
619 2533 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
620 2535 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
621 2534 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
622 2590 0 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 7 0 0
623 2594 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
623 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
624 2595 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
625 2591 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
626 2593 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
627 2589 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
628 2596 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
628 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
629 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
630 2613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
631 2614 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
632 2615 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
633 2693 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0
633 65 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
634 2616 45 0 47 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
635 2692 26 3 32 46 1 24 0 3 0 0 0 0
635 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0
636 2695 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 2697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
638 2696 124 0 131 8 0 7 1 2 0 0 0 0
638 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
639 2694 2 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
640 281 0 293 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
641 30 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
642 2699 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
643 2698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
644 2691 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
645 45 0 46 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
646 2647 20 0 21 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 0
646 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
647 2653 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
647 28 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
648 18 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
649 2654 0 0 1 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
649 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
650 2649 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
651 2730 0 8 8 9 0 10 2 0 0 0 0 0
651 196 0 203 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
652 2651 13 0 13 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0
652 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
653 2732 50 8 60 12 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 0
653 81 2 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
654 2652 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
654 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
655 2731 0 0 1 18 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0
421
Gynerium saggitatum
Zea mays other part
Erythroxylum coca
Zea mays cupule
Crotalaria incana
Total Zea mays
Nectandra sp.
Lagenaria sp.
Capsicum sp.
Cucurbita sp.
Gigartina sp.
Context
Bag
655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
656 2728 0 9 10 7 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0
656 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
657 2726 54 5 72 1 0 13 0 1 0 0 0 0
658 2733 0 7 8 6 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0
658 305 0 312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
659 2729 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
660 2727 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
661 2768 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
662 2770 5 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2766 82 2 92 9 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2769 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2804 18 0 19 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
664 2764 63 10 75 10 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
664 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
665 2763 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 300 0 308 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0
666 2767 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
667 2771 12 0 14 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0
667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
668 2762 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
669 2765 50 5 61 7 1 48 0 1 0 0 0 0
669 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
422
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
2 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2 43 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
6 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
9 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
10 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
10 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 15
11 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
12 222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
14 223 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 221 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 11
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
18 327 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
20 394 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 393 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
22 392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 391 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
34 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
423
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 10
38 476 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 478 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
44 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
45 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
49 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
53 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 274 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
57 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
59 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
60 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
61 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
62 159 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
64 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
65 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
71 361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
73 362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
87 293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
425
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 346 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
93 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
107 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
109 403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
110 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
111 432 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 438 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
114 442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 494 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
123 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 7
426
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
125 18 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 14
126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
129 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
134 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 614 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
141 613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 745 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
146 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
149 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
151 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
163 785 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
163 786 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
164 793 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
164 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
427
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
177 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
183 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
188 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
190 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
193 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
199 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
207 887 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 22
207 2 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
208 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
209 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
210 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
211 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
218 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
219 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
220 1042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
428
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
225 1103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1
225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
231 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
233 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
238 906 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 110 0 0 0 0 2 0 14
238 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 916 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
239 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
243 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
244 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
245 984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
245 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
247 993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
247 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1
248 1016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
248 1018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
248 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
259 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
261 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
262 1173 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 1181 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
263 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
264 1182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
265 1179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
265 1180 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
271 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
273 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
274 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
276 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
277 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
278 1152 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
278 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
279 1154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
280 1192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
283 1299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
286 1209 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
292 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
293 1235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
297 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
298 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
299 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
302 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
304 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 1319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 1326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
308 1369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
309 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
310 1371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 1241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
316 1247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
321 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
323 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 1360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
324 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
328 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
329 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 1442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
334 1492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
336 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
337 1515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
431
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
337 1516 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
337 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
338 1555 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
338 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
341 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
342 1568 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
342 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
346 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
347 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
348 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
349 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
351 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
352 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
355 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
357 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
359 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
361 1411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
362 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
363 1473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
364 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
365 1525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
368 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
370 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
373 1585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
373 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
379 1613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
432
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
379 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
381 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
382 1609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
382 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
383 1617 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
384 1626 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
384 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
385 1660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
387 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
388 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
389 2417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
389 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1784 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
403 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
403 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
404 2122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
404 2180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
404 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
405 1631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406 1708 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
408 1782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
408 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
409 1781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
409 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
410 1874 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 1875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 1876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 1783 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
433
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
415 1957 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
416 1953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
417 1954 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 1959 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
419 1958 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
421 1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
421 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
423 1956 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
424 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
425 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
426 2080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
426 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
427 2083 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
428 2085 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
428 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429 2081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
430 2082 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
431 2084 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
433 2086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 2118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
435 2182 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 2126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
437 2127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
438 2121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
439 2123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
440 2125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
441 2124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
442 2181 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
443 2183 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
443 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
444 2184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
445 2185 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
446 2186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
447 2315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
448 2317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
448 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
449 2372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
449 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
450 2265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
450 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
451 2268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
452 2267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
452 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
453 2266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
454 2272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
455 2270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
456 2269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
457 2264 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
458 2316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
459 2314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
460 2271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
461 2263 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
462 2319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
463 2318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
464 2313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
466 2311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
468 1666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
469 1667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
470 1833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472 1903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 6
473 1834 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
435
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
473 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
474 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
475 2042 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2044 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2045 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
476 2098 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
476 2133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
476 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
477 2335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
478 1763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
478 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
479 1899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
480 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
481 1902 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17
481 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
482 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
483 2043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
484 2096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
485 2097 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
486 2142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
486 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
488 2140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
489 2212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
490 2378 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 17
490 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
491 2213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
492 2141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
493 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
494 2209 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
495 2211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
496 2210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
497 2336 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499 2280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
500 2333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
501 2331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
501 2332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
436
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
502 2281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
502 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
503 2282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
504 2284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
505 2283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 2334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
507 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
508 2451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
509 2491 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
510 2456 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
511 2492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 2493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
513 2494 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
515 2453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
517 2454 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
518 2455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
518 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
520 2452 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
521 2496 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
522 2497 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
523 2498 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
524 2458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
525 2457 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
526 2460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
526 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
527 2515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
528 2499 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
529 2518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
530 2516 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
531 2517 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
532 1643 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
532 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1649 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
534 1655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
535 1703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
437
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
535 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
537 1704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
538 1702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
538 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
539 1699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
539 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 30
540 1749 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
540 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 21 2 0 0 0 2 0 24
541 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
542 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
542 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
545 1652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
546 1705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
548 1697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 1698 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
549 1700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
550 1812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
550 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
551 1813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
551 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
552 1814 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
552 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
553 1816 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
553 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
554 1815 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 22 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 44
554 14 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 25 4 0 1 0 2 0 23
555 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
556 1762 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
556 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
557 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
558 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
558 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
559 1917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
559 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
560 2052 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
561 1918 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
561 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
562 1919 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
438
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
563 1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
563 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
564 2051 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
565 2152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
565 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
566 2108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
566 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
571 2033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
571 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
572 2032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
572 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
573 2168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
574 2093 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
576 2171 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 2236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
577 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
578 2239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
578 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
581 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
582 2169 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
582 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
583 2170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
583 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
584 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
586 2237 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
588 2238 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58
588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
589 2240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
589 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 2358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 10
591 2359 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
591 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
592 2360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
592 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
593 2394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
439
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
594 2395 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
595 2487 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
595 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
596 2488 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
596 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
598 2361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
599 2489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
599 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
600 2490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
601 2524 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
601 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
602 2553 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
602 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69
603 2523 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
604 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
606 2552 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
607 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
609 2468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
610 2529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
611 2530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
611 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
612 2531 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
613 2532 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
614 2536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 2592 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
618 2469 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
619 2533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
620 2535 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
620 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
621 2534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
622 2590 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
623 2594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
623 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
624 2595 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
625 2591 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
626 2593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
440
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
627 2589 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
628 2596 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
628 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
629 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
630 2613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
631 2614 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
632 2615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
633 2693 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
634 2616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
635 2692 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
635 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
636 2695 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 2697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
638 2696 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
638 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
639 2694 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
639 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
642 2699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
643 2698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
644 2691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
645 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
646 2647 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
646 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
647 2653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
647 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
648 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
649 2654 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
649 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
650 2649 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
651 2730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
652 2651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
653 2732 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
653 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
654 2652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
441
Sapindus saponaria
Cenchrus echinatus
Thevetia peruviana
Capparis ovalifolia
Capparis angulata
Arachis hypogaea
Pithecellobium sp
Spilanthes ureas
Ipomoea batatas
Total unknown
Umbelliferae
Cyperaceae
Neptunia sp
Equisettum
Bunchiosa
giganteum
armeniaca
Acacia sp
Phyla sp
Context
Bag
654 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
655 2731 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 112
655 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
656 2728 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
656 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
657 2726 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
658 2733 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
658 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
659 2729 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
660 2727 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
661 2768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
662 2770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
663 2766 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
663 2769 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
663 2804 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
663 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
664 2764 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
664 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 2763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
666 2767 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
667 2771 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
668 2762 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
669 2765 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
669 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
442
Appendix D
FAUNAL DATA
443
Key
Context-Corresponds with context in excavation data table (Appendix B)

Element-
Head/neck
1=Skull
2=Axis/atlas
3=Mandible
4=Unidentified head/neck
Forelimb
5=Cervical vertebra
6=Humerus
7=Radius/ulna
8=Metacarpals/phalanges
9=Unidentified forelimb
Trunk
10=Ribs
11=Pelvis
12=Scapula
13=Thoracic vertebra
14=Sternum
15=Unidentified trunk
Hindlimb
16=Femur
17=Tibia/fibula
18=Metatarsals
19=Unidentified hindlimb
End
20=Lumbar vertebra
21=Unspecified phalange/metapodial
22=Unspecified vertebra
23=Other
24=Unidentified long bones
25=Unidentified frags
26=Unidentified tooth
99=Not applicable
Taphonomy=
0=none observed
1=burnt
2=calcined
3=cutmarks
444
Table A.5. Terrestrial faunal data
Context Bag Species Element Count Taphonomy

2 42 Muridae 10 1 0
2 42 Unidentified mammal 25 1 0
2 43 Muridae 1 1 0
4 81 Cavia porcellus 3 1 0
5 124 Larus sp. 99 1 0
15 213 Unidentified bird 1 0
18 327 Lama sp. 20 1 1
19 370 Lama sp. 8 1 0
20 372 Lama sp. 17 3 0
20 372 Lama sp. 26 1 0
21 393 Phalacrocorax sp. 22 1 0
27 386 Lama sp. 25 4 0
40 478 Iguana sp. 3 1 0
40 478 Iguana sp. 24 6 0
42 467 Lama sp. 26 3 0
42 467 Lama sp. 3 3 0
48 103 Lama sp. 24 4 0
49 145 Canis familiaris 17 1 0
49 145 Lama sp. 24 4 0
50 154 Lama sp. 24 2 1
50 161 Iguana sp. 22 1 0
50 161 Lama sp. 25 13 1
52 249 Lama sp. 21 1 0
56 53 Lama sp. 22 1 1
56 1620 Lama sp. 12 1 0
59 98 Lama sp. 7 1 1
445
60 354 Lama sp. 3 2 0
60 365 Lama sp. 12 1 0
60 365 Muridae 10 1 0
61 112 Unidentified crustacean 99 1 1
61 112 Lama sp. 26 1 0
62 159 Lama sp. 25 2 0
64 254 Lama sp. 24 1 0
64 511 Lama sp. 11 1 0
66 208 Muridae 6 1 0
66 255 Lama sp. 12 2 0
68 266 Lama sp. 17 1 0
68 266 Lama sp. 18 1 0
68 266 Lama sp. 25 1 0
69 304 Lama sp. 3 1 0
69 311 Iguana sp. 8 1 0
69 312 Lama sp. 10 1 0
76 18 Unidentified echinoderm 99 1 0
78 89 Muridae 16 1 0
79 85 Bufo sp. 11 1 0
82 137 Lama sp. 3 1 0
82 137 Lama sp. 26 7 0
82 137 Lama sp. 17 4 0
82 138 Lama sp. 25 1 0
83 184 Odocoileus sp. 21 1 0
83 184 Lama sp. 21 1 0
83 184 Lama sp. 13 2 0
446
83 184 Muridae 11 1 0
83 184 Muridae 16 1 0
85 229 Lama sp. 3 3 0
86 233 Lama sp. 21 3 0
86 233 Lama sp. 1 1 0
87 241 Lama sp. 24 1 0
87 281 Lama sp. 11 2 0
87 281 Lama sp. 24 6 0
87 281 Lama sp. 25 7 0
87 283 Lama sp. 1 1 0
88 284 Lama sp. 24 2 0
88 285 Lama sp. 3 1 0
88 285 Lama sp. 21 1 0
88 285 Lama sp. 22 8 0
88 285 Lama sp. 21 1 0
88 285 Lama sp. 16 1 0
88 285 Lama sp. 21 1 0
88 285 Lama sp. 17 1 0
88 285 Lama sp. 11 1 0
88 285 Lama sp. 1 2 0
88 285 Lama sp. 3 3 0
88 285 Lama sp. 17 9 0
88 285 Lama sp. 10 1 0
88 285 Muridae 17 1 0
89 290 Unidentified bird 25 1 2
89 332 Lama sp. 6 1 0
89 332 Lama sp. 21 1 0
89 332 Lama sp. 24 2 0
447
90 339 Lama sp. 16 1 0
90 339 Lama sp. 25 3 0
90 345 Muridae 25 1 0
91 334 Lama sp. 22 2 0
94 424 Lama sp. 26 1 0
94 424 Lama sp. 24 1 0
95 419 Lama sp. 7 1 0
95 419 Lama sp. 26 1 0
105 224 Muridae 1 1 0
105 226 Lama sp. 8 1 0
105 226 Lama sp. 18 2 0
105 226 Lama sp. 21 1 0
105 226 Lama sp. 7 1 0
448
105 226 Lama sp. 13 1 0
105 226 Lama sp. 10 2 0
105 226 Lama sp. 24 4 0
105 226 Lama sp. 25 22 0
106 176 Hypollobocera sp 99 1 0
106 176 Hypollobocera sp 99 1 0
106 176 Lama sp. 25 2 0
106 176 Lama sp. 16 1 0
106 176 Lama sp. 21 2 0
106 176 Lama sp. 22 2 0
108 344 Lama sp. 22 2 1
108 344 Muridae 25 2 0
109 562 Lama sp. 21 1 0
110 402 Lama sp. 26 2 0
115 447 Muridae 10 3 0
116 567 Lama sp. 13 1 0
116 567 Lama sp. 10 2 0
116 567 Lama sp. 26 1 0
116 567 Lama sp. 6 1 0
118 485 Iguana sp. 6 1 0
119 492 Lama sp. 21 1 0
119 492 Lama sp. 25 2 0
119 492 Lama sp. 25 1 0
119 492 Lama sp. 10 1 0
119 494 Lama sp. 7 4 0
119 494 Lama sp. 24 4 1
119 494 Muridae 3 1 0
128 513 Lama sp. 11 1 3
128 513 Lama sp. 25 5 0
129 521 Lama sp. 20 1 0
449
129 521 Lama sp. 17 1 0
129 521 Lama sp. 25 1 0
129 521 Lama sp. 18 1 0
129 521 Lama sp. 18 1 0
129 521 Lama sp. 21 1 0
129 521 Lama sp. 1 4 0
129 521 Lama sp. 16 1 3
129 521 Lama sp. 21 1 0
129 521 Lama sp. 25 1 1
129 521 Lama sp. 1 1 0
129 521 Lama sp. 1 2 0
130 527 Lama sp. 21 1 3
130 527 Lama sp. 18 1 0
130 527 Lama sp. 11 1 0
130 527 Lama sp. 7 3 0
131 570 Lama sp. 7 1 0
131 570 Lama sp. 12 1 0
131 570 Lama sp. 1 2 0
131 583 Bufo sp. 11 1 0
131 583 Lama sp. 22 1 0
132 587 Lama sp. 21 1 0
132 587 Lama sp. 3 1 0
168 650 Lama sp. 12 1 0
168 650 Lama sp. 21 3 0
171 681 Lama sp. 16 1 0
172 687 Lama sp. 21 1 3
199 750 Lama sp. 10 1 0
203 822 Lama sp. 21 1 0
203 931 Lama sp. 17 1 0
204 824 Lama sp. 6 1 0
204 824 Lama sp. 1 1 0
450
204 824 Lama sp. 22 1 0
204 824 Lama sp. 25 1 0
204 935 Lama sp. 16 2 0
205 866 Lama sp. 24 4 0
205 866 Lama sp. 21 1 3
205 866 Lama sp. 18 1 1
205 866 Lama sp. 10 2 0
205 866 Lama sp. 25 8 0
205 937 Lama sp. 22 1 0
205 937 Lama sp. 22 1 0
205 937 Lama sp. 24 4 0
206 873 Lama sp. 16 1 0
206 873 Lama sp. 25 6 0
206 873 Lama sp. 3 1 0
206 873 Lama sp. 1 1 0
206 873 Muridae 3 1 0
206 945 Larus sp. 25 1 0
206 945 Lama sp. 7 1 0
207 877 Lama sp. 18 1 0
207 877 Lama sp. 26 1 0
207 877 Lama sp. 3 1 0
207 877 Lama sp. 24 4 0
207 950 Lama sp. 26 1 0
207 950 Lama sp. 12 1 0
207 950 Lama sp. 21 1 0
207 950 Lama sp. 25 5 0
208 954 Lama sp. 26 1 0
208 954 Lama sp. 21 1 2
208 954 Lama sp. 22 1 0
208 954 Lama sp. 25 9 0
208 954 Muridae 1 2 0
208 997 Lama sp. 10 2 0
209 1004 Lama sp. 10 2 0
209 1004 Lama sp. 7 4 0
451
210 1007 Lama sp. 12 1 0
210 1007 Lama sp. 10 2 2
210 1007 Lama sp. 21 1 3
211 1051 Lama sp. 11 1 0
211 1051 Lama sp. 7 2 0
212 852 Iguana sp. 1 1 0
218 1032 Lama sp. 10 1 0
220 1040 Lama sp. 10 3 0
220 1040 Muridae 25 1 0
221 1043 Lama sp. 25 2 0
229 830 Lama sp. 7 1 0
229 830 Lama sp. 26 1 0
229 830 Lama sp. 8 3 0
230 833 Lama sp. 16 14 0
230 833 Lama sp. 3 2 0
231 839 Lama sp. 24 1 0
232 842 Lama sp. 24 23 0
232 842 Lama sp. 26 1 0
232 842 Lama sp. 5 1 0
233 847 Lama sp. 17 5 0
233 847 Lama sp. 21 1 0
234 891 Lama sp. 12 1 0
237 908 Lama sp. 11 3 0
237 908 Lama sp. 25 4 0
245 979 Lama sp. 17 1 3
245 979 Lama sp. 21 1 0
245 979 Lama sp. 22 2 1
245 979 Lama sp. 24 1 0
245 984 Muridae 16 1 0
259 1120 Lama sp. 6 1 0
259 1120 Lama sp. 16 1 0
260 1125 Lama sp. 24 2 0
260 1125 Lama sp. 18 1 0
452
263 1166 Lama sp. 1 1 0
263 1166 Lama sp. 22 1 0
263 1166 Lama sp. 8 1 0
263 1166 Lama sp. 12 2 0
263 1181 Muridae 24 2 0
263 1181 Muridae 1 2 0
268 1066 Lama sp. 25 2 0
272 1218 Lama sp. 17 1 1
274 1288 Lama sp. 17 2 1
274 1288 Lama sp. 21 1 0
278 1150 Lama sp. 8 1 0
278 1150 Lama sp. 18 1 0
278 1150 Lama sp. 12 1 1
278 1150 Lama sp. 1 1 1
278 1150 Lama sp. 24 1 0
279 1185 Lama sp. 21 1 0
279 1185 Lama sp. 25 1 0
280 1189 Lama sp. 21 1 0
280 1189 Lama sp. 10 1 0
282 1199 Lama sp. 7 1 0
282 1199 Lama sp. 21 1 3
282 1199 Lama sp. 21 1 0
282 1199 Lama sp. 7 1 0
282 1199 Lama sp. 16 1 0
282 1199 Lama sp. 18 1 0
282 1199 Lama sp. 26 1 0
282 1199 Lama sp. 25 5 2
286 1208 Lama sp. 16 1 0
295 1259 Lama sp. 24 1 2
304 1308 Lama sp. 25 5 0
304 1308 Lama sp. 25 4 2
304 1308 Lama sp. 21 2 0
304 1308 Lama sp. 25 3 2
304 1308 Lama sp. 25 2 0
306 1324 Iguana sp. 22 2 0
306 1324 Iguana sp. 22 1 0
306 1324 Lama sp. 8 1 3
306 1324 Lama sp. 25 5 2
453
314 1241 Lama sp. 24 3 0
326 1361 Lama sp. 21 2 0
328 1420 Lama sp. 24 1 0
329 1426 Lama sp. 10 2 0
329 1426 Lama sp. 3 1 0
329 1427 Lama sp. 6 1 0
332 1476 Lama sp. 24 1 0
333 1481 Lama sp. 18 1 0
333 1481 Lama sp. 14 1 0
336 1502 Lama sp. 6 2 0
336 1502 Lama sp. 1 1 0
338 1557 Bufo sp. 22 1 0
338 1557 Lama sp. 7 1 0
338 1557 Lama sp. 6 2 0
338 1557 Lama sp. 6 1 0
338 1557 Lama sp. 25 3 0
338 1557 Lama sp. 25 2 1
342 1572 Lama sp. 17 1 0
342 1572 Lama sp. 25 1 1
359 1400 Lama sp. 21 1 0
359 1400 Lama sp. 7 1 0
359 1400 Lama sp. 22 4 0
359 1400 Lama sp. 25 10 0
454
360 1407 Lama sp. 11 1 1
360 1407 Lama sp. 25 6 0
360 1407 Lama sp. 22 1 1
360 1407 Lama sp. 25 28 0
361 1411 Lama sp. 25 1 0
361 1417 Iguana sp. 3 1 0
361 1417 Iguana sp. 7 2 0
361 1417 Iguana sp. 11 1 0
361 1417 Iguana sp. 24 1 0
361 1417 Lama sp. 7 1 0
361 1417 Lama sp. 10 3 0
361 1417 Lama sp. 25 4 0
363 1468 Lama sp. 10 3 0
363 1468 Lama sp. 22 8 0
363 1468 Lama sp. 25 21 0
363 1473 Chryphiops caementarius 99 1 0
364 1517 Lama sp. 22 1 0
364 1517 Lama sp. 3 1 0
364 1517 Lama sp. 25 4 0
364 1518 Lama sp. 17 1 0
364 1518 Lama sp. 6 5 0
364 1518 Lama sp. 22 1 0
365 1536 Lama sp. 22 1 0
365 1536 Lama sp. 22 1 0
365 1538 Lama sp. 6 1 0
365 1538 Lama sp. 16 1 0
365 1538 Lama sp. 16 1 0
365 1538 Lama sp. 8 1 1
365 1538 Lama sp. 10 1 0
365 1538 Lama sp. 25 10 0
365 1538 Lama sp. 25 5 2
455
365 1538 Muridae 3 1 0
365 1538 Muridae 3 1 0
366 1528 Lama sp. 10 4 0
366 1528 Lama sp. 6 1 0
366 1528 Lama sp. 7 1 0
368 1543 Lama sp. 24 6 0
368 1543 Lama sp. 13 2 0
368 1543 Lama sp. 22 1 1
369 1549 Lama sp. 6 2 0
369 1549 Lama sp. 24 3 0
369 1549 Lama sp. 25 6 0
369 1549 Muridae 3 1 0
370 1578 Lama sp. 13 1 0
370 1578 Lama sp. 10 1 0
370 1578 Lama sp. 24 2 0
370 1578 Lama sp. 25 6 0
382 1609 Lama sp. 16 3 1
385 1657 Lama sp. 8 1 0
386 2410 Lama sp. 7 1 0
386 2410 Lama sp. 7 1 0
401 1850 Lama sp. 6 2 0
403 2005 Lama sp. 24 3 0
403 2005 Lama sp. 22 1 0
419 1958 Lama sp. 10 1 0
420 1947 Lama sp. 17 1 0
456
423 1951 Lama sp. 7 1 0
425 2060 Lama sp. 7 1 0
426 2066 Lama sp. 11 2 0
429 2081 Muridae 25 1 0
436 2112 Lama sp. 21 1 0
436 2112 Lama sp. 18 1 0
437 2127 Lama sp. 26 1 0
447 2315 Iguana sp. 8 1 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 21 3 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 17 3 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 25 4 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 17 1 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 21 1 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 18 3 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 23 1 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 10 1 0
448 2366 Lama sp. 21 1 0
450 2245 Lama sp. 22 1 0
451 2247 Lama sp. 6 1 0
456 2255 Lama sp. 7 1 0
457
456 2255 Lama sp. 10 1 0
458 2316 Muridae 16 1 0
467 1633 Lama sp. 6 1 0
467 1633 Larus sp. 25 8 0
469 1725 Bufo sp. 6 1 0
471 1888 Lama sp. 1 1 0
472 1961 Iguana sp. 17 1 0
472 1961 Iguana sp. 16 1 0
472 1961 Iguana sp. 6 1 0
472 1961 Lama sp. 25 5 0
472 1961 Lama sp. 1 1 0
473 1823 Lama sp. 2 1 0
473 1823 Lama sp. 22 1 0
473 1823 Lama sp. 25 1 0
473 1823 Lama sp. 25 1 0
473 1826 Lama sp. 21 2 0
473 1826 Lama sp. 6 1 0
473 1834 Muridae 16 1 0
474 1966 Lama sp. 24 1 0
474 1966 Lama sp. 25 2 0
475 2035 Lama sp. 6 1 0
475 2035 Lama sp. 24 3 0
458
475 2095 Muridae 17 1 0
476 2128 Lama sp. 17 6 0
476 2128 Lama sp. 26 1 0
477 2374 Lama sp. 16 1 0
477 2374 Lama sp. 25 3 0
478 1720 Lama sp. 24 7 1
478 1720 Lama sp. 26 2 0
484 2096 Muridae 16 1 0
484 2096 Muridae 3 2 0
484 2096 Muridae 17 1 0
485 2097 Lama sp. 10 3 0
490 2378 Muridae 22 1 0
490 2419 Lama sp. 7 1 0
490 2419 Lama sp. 24 3 0
495 2211 Lama sp. 24 1 0
499 2325 Lama sp. 1 1 0
500 2333 Tejidae 25 1 0
502 2273 Lama sp. 24 1 2
506 2330 Lama sp. 21 2 0
508 2425 Lama sp. 1 1 0
511 2492 Muridae 3 1 0
511 2492 Muridae 22 1 0
515 2443 Lama sp. 21 1 0
515 2443 Lama sp. 22 1 0
459
515 2443 Lama sp. 8 1 0
515 2443 Lama sp. 3 1 0
525 2457 Lama sp. 10 1 0
533 1649 Lama sp. 25 1 0
535 1703 Muridae 3 1 0
536 1733 Lama sp. 10 1 0
539 1735 Lama sp. 24 1 0
540 2808 Lama sp. 24 1 0
546 1705 Muridae 2 1 0
552 1814 Unidentified reptile 25 8 0
553 1883 Larus sp. 25 4 0
553 1883 Lama sp. 22 1 0
553 1883 Lama sp. 6 1 0
554 1799 Lama sp. 10 1 0
554 1799 Lama sp. 25 3 2
555 1803 Lama sp. 10 1 0
555 1803 Lama sp. 7 1 0
555 1803 Lama sp. 25 1 2
557 1841 Lama sp. 10 1 0
460
557 1841 Lama sp. 24 6 0
557 1841 Muridae 3 1 0
559 1909 Bufo sp. 1 1 0
561 1975 Bufo sp. 22 2 0
563 2054 Lama sp. 8 1 1
565 2146 Lama sp. 7 1 0
565 2146 Lama sp. 24 1 0
568 1987 Lama sp. 24 3 0
569 1995 Muridae 17 1 0
570 1994 Muridae 16 1 0
570 1994 Muridae 24 3 0
570 2019 Lama sp. 7 2 0
570 2019 Lama sp. 10 1 0
571 2023 Lama sp. 1 1 0
571 2023 Lama sp. 21 1 0
571 2023 Lama sp. 21 5 0
571 2023 Lama sp. 24 3 0
572 2027 Lama sp. 24 1 0
574 2091 Lama sp. 22 1 0
574 2091 Lama sp. 10 1 0
574 2091 Lama sp. 25 4 0
574 2091 Muridae 3 1 0
574 2091 Muridae 3 1 0
574 2093 Muridae 12 1 0
575 2153 Lama sp. 8 1 0
577 2236 Muridae 16 1 0
461
577 2236 Muridae 25 42 0
578 2234 Lama sp. 7 2 0
583 2170 Lama sp. 24 1 0
589 2226 Lama sp. 22 1 0
589 2226 Lama sp. 24 2 0
589 2240 Lama sp. 25 1 0
589 2240 Muridae 26 2 0
590 2338 Lama sp. 10 2 0
590 2338 Lama sp. 6 1 0
590 2338 Muridae 16 1 0
590 2358 Lama sp. 22 1 1
591 2346 Lama sp. 8 1 0
591 2346 Lama sp. 24 1 0
592 2351 Iguana sp. 22 1 0
592 2351 Lama sp. 7 1 0
592 2351 Lama sp. 24 5 0
592 2351 Lama sp. 25 1 0
593 2382 Lama sp. 1 2 0
593 2382 Lama sp. 7 1 0
593 2382 Lama sp. 24 1 0
593 2382 Lama sp. 25 1 0
593 2385 Bufo sp. 99 1 0
594 2389 Lama sp. 7 1 0
594 2389 Lama sp. 16 9 0
594 2389 Lama sp. 26 1 0
595 2484 Lama sp. 1 4 0
595 2487 Muridae 25 4 0
596 2520 Lama sp. 24 4 0
602 2546 Lama sp. 16 1 1
603 2523 Lama sp. 5 1 0
462
607 2402 Muridae 3 1 0
609 2462 Lama sp. 18 1 0
611 2558 Lama sp. 12 1 0
613 2562 Lama sp. 17 3 0
613 2562 Lama sp. 26 1 0
615 2570 Muridae 25 1 0
635 2692 Muridae 3 2 0
638 2696 Iguana sp. 22 5 0
639 2674 Lama sp. 21 1 2
640 2679 Muridae 6 1 0
641 2684 Lama sp. 3 1 0
649 2643 Lama sp. 24 1 0
658 2722 Muridae 3 1 0
665 2749 Lama sp. 6 2 0
665 2763 Muridae 6 2 0
665 2763 Muridae 3 2 0
463
667 2753 Unidentified reptile 99 8 0
667 2771 Lama sp. 1 1 0
669 2765 Muridae 25 4 0
FISH
Table A.6. Fish data
Paralonchurus peruanus
Galeichthys peruvianus
Rhinobatos planiceps
Caulolatilus cabezon
Labrisomus philippii
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
5 122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 223 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 318 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 322 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 368 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 370 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
21 378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
23 391 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
26 390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
26 390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
38 455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 476 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 463 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
47 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
47 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
464
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
48 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
49 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
49 145 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 154 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
52 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 272 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
53 274 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0
54 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
59 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
60 354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 356 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
61 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
61 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
62 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
64 252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 254 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 268 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
65 306 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
66 208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
66 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
66 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 262 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0
67 270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0
68 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
69 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
465
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
69 312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0
70 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
70 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
71 361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0
71 361 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
72 366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0
76 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
78 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
80 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
82 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 138 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
83 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
85 229 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 241 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
88 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
88 285 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 288 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 290 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
89 332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
90 345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
91 334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 347 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
94 422 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 396 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 397 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 419 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
466
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
104 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
105 226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
106 176 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
107 296 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
108 344 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
109 403 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 562 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
110 402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 427 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 434 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
112 436 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 438 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 442 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0
115 445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
116 564 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 567 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 504 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
119 491 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 494 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
119 494 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
122 536 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
125 546 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
129 521 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
130 527 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
131 570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
133 596 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137 592 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 614 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
140 614 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
146 622 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
146 626 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
153 659 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
467
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
156 667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
160 722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
162 727 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
163 785 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 786 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0
165 788 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
175 674 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
179 697 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
179 698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 758 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
187 765 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
203 822 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 824 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
205 866 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
205 937 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
206 873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
206 945 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
207 877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
207 887 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
207 887 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
207 950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
208 954 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
208 997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
209 1004 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
210 1007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
211 1051 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
213 858 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
218 1032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
220 1040 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
221 1043 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 1087 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
223 1094 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
225 1103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
229 830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
231 839 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
232 842 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
238 902 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 914 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
468
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
239 916 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
247 991 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
256 1109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
258 1116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 1181 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
264 1182 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0
265 1179 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
265 1180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
266 1061 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 1073 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 1214 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
273 1132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
274 1288 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
278 1150 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
280 1192 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
283 1299 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
286 1209 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
293 1235 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
301 1279 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
302 1301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 1313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
304 1308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 1319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
308 1369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
308 1369 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
317 1251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
321 1348 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
328 1421 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
331 1440 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 1442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
334 1487 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
334 1489 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
334 1492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
337 1516 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
347 1380 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
351 1395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
355 1455 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
360 1407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
361 1411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0
469
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
361 1411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
361 1417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
363 1468 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
363 1473 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
364 1517 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
364 1518 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
365 1525 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
365 1538 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
368 1543 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
369 1549 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
373 1585 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
373 1585 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0
378 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 1609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0
383 1617 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
386 2410 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
389 2413 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
389 2417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1784 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1872 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 1998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 1999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
403 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
403 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
404 2122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
408 1782 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
409 1853 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 1860 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 1875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 1876 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
413 1783 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
415 1921 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
415 1957 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
415 1957 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
470
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
416 1926 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
417 1935 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 1959 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
419 1940 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
419 1958 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
421 1950 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
425 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
425 2061 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
426 2080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
429 2081 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 2082 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
433 2086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
433 2086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 2114 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 2118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
434 2118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
436 2111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 2112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 2126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0
436 2126 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 2126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
437 2127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
437 2127 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
438 2121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
441 2124 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
442 2181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
444 2184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0
444 2184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
446 2186 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
447 2307 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
447 2315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0
448 2317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0
448 2363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
448 2366 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
449 2372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
450 2245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
471
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
451 2247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
452 2267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
453 2266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
456 2255 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
456 2269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
457 2264 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
458 2316 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
459 2314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
460 2260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
460 2271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
460 2271 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
463 2303 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
467 1633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
468 1663 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
469 1667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
469 1725 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
470 1817 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
470 1833 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 1888 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 1901 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472 1903 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472 1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
473 1823 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
473 1826 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
473 1834 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
474 1966 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2095 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 2098 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
476 2128 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
477 2335 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
477 2374 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
478 1720 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
478 1763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
480 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
481 1902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
485 2097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
487 2136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
489 2194 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
490 2378 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
490 2378 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
491 2213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
491 2213 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
492 2141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0
492 2141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
492 2198 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
493 2202 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
494 2209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
495 2211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
495 2807 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
496 2210 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
499 2280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
501 2331 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
504 2284 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
505 2283 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
506 2334 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
508 2425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
508 2451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
509 2491 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 2493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
513 2438 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
515 2453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
517 2454 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
518 2455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
522 2497 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
523 2498 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
524 2458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
530 2516 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
532 1641 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1646 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1649 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0
535 1703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1733 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
537 1704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
537 1704 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
538 1702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
539 1677 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
473
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
539 1683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
539 1699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
539 1735 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
540 1747 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
540 1749 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
540 1749 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
540 2808 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
542 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
542 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
545 1652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
546 1705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 1696 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 1698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
549 1700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
550 1812 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
551 1813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
552 1814 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
553 1816 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
553 1883 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
554 1799 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
554 1815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
555 1803 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
557 1841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
559 1917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
560 2052 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
560 2099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
561 1918 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
563 1983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
563 1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
563 2054 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
565 2146 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
565 2152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
565 2152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
568 1987 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
571 2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
572 2027 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 2236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
474
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
583 2170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
586 2237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
589 2226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
589 2240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 2338 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
590 2342 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
592 2351 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
592 2354 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
592 2360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
593 2382 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
593 2394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
594 2387 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
594 2389 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
594 2392 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
594 2395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
594 2476 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
595 2484 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
596 2488 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
596 2520 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
598 2361 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
599 2471 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
606 2552 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
609 2468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
611 2530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
611 2558 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
612 2531 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
615 2570 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 2592 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
618 2469 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
620 2535 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
622 2590 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
622 2590 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
623 2594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
625 2591 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
627 2589 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
628 2596 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
628 2596 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
633 2687 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
633 2693 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
475
Isurus oxyrhynchus
Sciaena deliciosa
Engraulis ringens
Cynoscion analis
Sardinops sagax
Unidentified fish
Merluccius gayi
Mugil cephalus
Stellifer minor
Mustelus sp
Sciaena sp
Brycon sp
Context Bag
635 2662 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
635 2692 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
637 2666 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 2697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
639 2694 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
640 2679 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
641 2684 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
642 2699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
649 2643 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
649 2654 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
651 2703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
653 2710 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
653 2732 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
654 2635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
654 2652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
654 2652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
655 2731 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0
655 2731 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
658 2722 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
658 2733 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2737 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
663 2766 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2769 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
663 2804 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
664 2746 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 2749 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 2763 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
669 2765 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
669 2765 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
476
SHELLFISH
Table A.7. Shellfish data 1
Xanthochorus broderipii
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
2 40 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
2 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 43 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 72 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
4 73 7 20 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0
5 122 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 165 12 67 1 1 2 5 2 0 0 0
7 218 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 79 3 8 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
10 115 11 28 1 2 4 1 1 0 0 1
10 121 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 215 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 213 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 221 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 316 1 22 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
17 318 3 11 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
17 325 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
18 322 9 14 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 1
18 326 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
18 327 1 1 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 1
19 368 8 54 1 3 4 2 0 0 0 2
20 375 5 15 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0
20 392 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 394 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 377 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
21 393 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 391 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
24 382 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 383 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 390 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 387 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
29 407 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 409 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 411 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 40 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
34 416 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 454 0 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
477
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
38 455 5 5 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0
39 460 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 463 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
41 470 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 468 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
43 474 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 477 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
44 19 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 23 6 23 2 3 2 3 0 1 0 0
45 24 8 12 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 0
45 32 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 57 8 9 1 5 2 2 0 0 0 0
46 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 65 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 95 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
47 108 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 105 7 20 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
48 109 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 111 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
49 147 4 14 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 1
50 155 18 29 1 5 5 10 1 1 0 0
50 161 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
51 200 4 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 204 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 205 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
52 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 207 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 250 28 91 2 6 2 3 3 0 0 0
53 273 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 274 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 297 5 19 1 1 1 1 3 0 0 0
54 27 7 16 1 4 4 2 0 1 0 0
54 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
55 31 6 10 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
55 34 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 35 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 54 14 23 1 3 6 2 1 1 0 0
57 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 100 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 110 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 356 16 14 0 6 2 5 1 0 0 1
60 365 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
61 101 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
61 112 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
478
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
62 159 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
63 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 198 20 57 4 6 8 8 0 0 0 1
64 206 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 252 44 44 2 4 13 8 1 1 0 0
64 268 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
65 307 18 36 1 1 6 10 1 0 0 0
65 310 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
66 208 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 256 2 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 269 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
67 262 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
67 270 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
68 265 3 10 2 3 1 3 2 0 0 0
68 271 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 300 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
69 311 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 312 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 313 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 359 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 18 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 50 1 30 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
77 47 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 91 3 11 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
79 86 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 132 2 19 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
80 141 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 187 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 84 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 138 4 30 1 1 2 2 0 1 0 0
82 143 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
83 180 14 26 3 3 3 0 1 0 0 0
85 279 4 12 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
86 236 2 7 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
86 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 239 3 15 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0
87 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 283 6 17 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0
87 293 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 294 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
88 246 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 288 17 101 3 7 6 2 1 0 0 0
89 290 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
479
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
89 331 6 30 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0
90 340 6 24 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0
90 345 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 335 1 16 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
92 346 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
92 399 3 17 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 347 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
94 422 3 10 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
94 448 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 397 1 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 420 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 481 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 483 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 501 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
104 194 4 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
105 224 22 66 7 13 9 3 0 1 0 0
106 175 6 45 3 5 4 4 0 0 0 0
107 296 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 343 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 344 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
109 403 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 563 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 430 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 432 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 433 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 436 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 438 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 439 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 442 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 444 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
115 447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 564 5 43 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
117 506 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 510 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 487 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 489 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 491 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 494 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 533 2 52 1 7 1 3 0 0 0 0
122 536 1 16 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
123 556 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 539 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
125 540 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
126 551 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
480
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
127 553 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
128 514 3 44 1 3 4 1 0 0 1 0
129 522 23 113 8 11 8 4 0 0 0 1
130 529 13 25 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
131 569 29 139 13 7 12 3 1 0 0 1
132 588 11 92 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0
133 595 8 70 2 0 4 4 0 1 0 0
134 600 2 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 641 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
137 592 6 22 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 0
138 603 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 605 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 609 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 614 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
143 616 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
144 618 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
145 619 1 8 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
146 622 0 12 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0
147 627 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
148 629 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 634 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
150 637 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
151 640 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
153 659 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
154 662 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
155 665 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
156 667 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
157 669 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
158 715 1 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
159 716 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
160 723 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
162 729 3 13 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
163 784 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 785 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 786 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
164 791 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
165 790 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
167 648 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
168 649 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 652 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
170 679 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
171 682 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
172 686 3 6 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
174 670 1 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
174 673 2 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
481
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
176 738 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
177 733 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
178 735 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
179 697 3 10 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0
180 702 7 6 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
181 706 13 18 1 6 2 1 0 0 0 1
182 711 14 10 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
184 691 3 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 761 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
186 762 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
187 765 1 16 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
188 780 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
189 768 2 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
190 771 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
192 808 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
194 811 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
197 741 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
198 746 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
199 751 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 799 5 34 2 7 0 0 2 0 0 0
201 803 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
203 819 2 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
203 929 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 825 8 18 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
204 936 1 6 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
205 865 6 34 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 1
205 939 8 24 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
206 871 7 24 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1
206 942 9 15 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
207 876 5 19 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
207 887 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
207 946 7 23 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
208 957 7 22 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
208 995 4 23 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 0
209 1005 8 12 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
210 1009 7 24 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
211 1048 1 5 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
212 853 2 35 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0
212 921 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
213 858 5 24 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0
214 860 1 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
214 924 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
216 928 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
217 1030 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
218 1033 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
482
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
219 1035 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
220 1039 5 8 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
221 1044 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
222 1089 12 31 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
223 1093 3 17 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
225 1103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
226 1099 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
227 1105 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
229 829 3 11 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
230 834 3 14 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
231 837 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
232 843 1 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
233 848 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 849 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 892 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
236 895 5 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
237 910 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
238 903 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
238 906 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 915 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
241 963 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 970 5 15 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 972 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
244 976 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
245 980 5 55 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0
246 984 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
246 986 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
247 992 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
248 1017 1 17 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0
249 898 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 967 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
254 1025 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
256 1110 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
257 1112 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
258 1115 1 8 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
259 1119 0 11 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
260 1122 3 7 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
261 1159 2 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
262 1163 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 1164 5 18 2 2 0 1 2 0 0 0
263 1181 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
264 1177 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 1182 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
266 1060 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
266 1212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
483
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
269 1213 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 1075 4 10 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
270 1216 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
271 1081 7 17 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
272 1127 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
272 1220 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
273 1130 2 15 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
273 1292 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
275 1135 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
276 1141 4 8 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0
278 1148 11 83 2 6 4 0 0 0 0 0
278 1152 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
279 1187 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
280 1190 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
280 1192 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
281 1195 1 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
282 1202 13 19 2 4 2 1 0 0 0 0
283 1295 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
285 1057 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
286 1204 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
287 1155 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
288 1157 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
289 1225 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
290 1227 19 19 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0
291 1230 10 10 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0
292 1232 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
295 1258 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
296 1264 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
297 1267 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
298 1271 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
299 1274 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 1275 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 1281 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 1311 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
304 1306 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0
305 1314 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 1319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 1323 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
306 1326 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
307 1366 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
308 1369 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
310 1371 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
311 1248 1 8 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
314 1242 3 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
317 1250 2 12 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
484
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
318 1256 11 47 1 5 2 1 0 0 0 0
318 1327 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
319 1330 2 10 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
320 1333 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
321 1349 2 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
322 1336 4 10 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
323 1340 10 28 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
324 1360 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
325 1352 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
327 1363 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
328 1420 48 248 6 16 17 10 1 1 0 2
329 1429 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
330 1432 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 1436 2 13 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
331 1442 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
332 1475 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
333 1484 5 21 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
334 1487 1 22 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0
334 1492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
336 1503 4 21 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0
337 1513 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
337 1516 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
338 1555 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
338 1559 1 9 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
339 1508 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
342 1568 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
342 1571 1 7 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
343 1364 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
344 1373 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
345 1375 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
346 1376 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
347 1382 3 21 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0
348 1384 1 13 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0
349 1388 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
350 1391 1 9 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
351 1395 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
352 1445 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
353 1447 11 14 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
355 1454 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
358 1399 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
359 1402 1 5 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
360 1413 3 18 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 0
361 1408 2 9 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
361 1411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
361 1417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
485
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
362 1462 29 19 5 6 6 4 0 0 0 0
363 1470 30 25 2 6 0 5 0 0 0 0
363 1473 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
364 1523 33 88 5 9 10 6 1 1 0 0
365 1525 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
365 1533 6 28 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0
366 1529 2 17 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0
367 1540 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
368 1545 7 18 3 4 1 0 1 0 0 0
369 1550 7 26 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
370 1579 4 23 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0
371 1580 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
373 1585 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
374 1589 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
377 1595 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
378 1599 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
379 1610 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
379 1613 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
380 1605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
381 1615 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 1603 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 1609 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
384 1623 2 16 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0
384 1626 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
385 1658 7 23 1 1 3 2 0 1 0 0
385 1660 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
387 1710 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1713 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1718 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1764 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
389 2412 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
389 2417 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
400 1766 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1770 3 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
401 1784 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1848 3 11 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
401 1872 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 1998 11 19 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0
402 2012 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 2013 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
403 2003 38 82 6 15 13 11 1 0 0 0
403 2014 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
404 2122 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
404 2177 3 27 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
404 2180 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
486
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
405 1628 4 15 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
405 1631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406 1706 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
406 1708 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
408 1774 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
408 1782 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
409 1781 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
409 1854 1 9 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
410 1858 2 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1
410 1874 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
410 1955 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
411 1861 11 11 2 2 2 4 1 0 0 0
411 1875 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 1864 4 7 0 3 6 1 0 0 0 0
412 1876 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 1779 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 1783 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 1868 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 1873 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
415 1923 7 7 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 1
415 1957 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
416 1927 10 8 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 0
416 1953 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
417 1933 10 13 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0
417 1954 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 1938 3 4 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0
418 1959 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
419 1941 7 8 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0
419 1958 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1870 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1871 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1945 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
421 1960 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
422 1949 1 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0
423 1952 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
423 1956 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424 2009 4 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
424 2016 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
425 2015 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
425 2063 16 52 4 4 4 2 2 0 0 1
426 2068 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
426 2080 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
427 2069 8 23 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
427 2083 2 8 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0
428 2073 2 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
487
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
428 2085 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429 2081 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
430 2078 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 2082 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
431 2084 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
432 2087 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
433 2086 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 2113 10 8 1 5 2 6 0 0 0 0
434 2118 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
436 2111 9 7 1 2 4 4 0 1 0 0
436 2126 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
437 2116 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
437 2127 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
438 2121 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
441 2124 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
442 2173 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
442 2181 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
443 2175 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
443 2183 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
444 2184 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
445 2185 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
447 2306 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
447 2315 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
448 2317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
448 2363 22 28 2 4 3 0 1 1 0 0
449 2369 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
449 2372 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
450 2243 8 4 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
450 2265 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
451 2248 3 13 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
451 2268 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
452 2251 4 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
452 2267 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
455 2270 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
456 2269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
458 2294 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
459 2298 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
459 2314 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
460 2254 8 17 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
460 2271 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0
462 2299 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
462 2319 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
463 2302 1 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
463 2318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
464 2313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
488
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
465 2312 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
466 2311 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
467 1634 4 12 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
467 1636 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
468 1664 1 9 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
469 1726 5 17 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 0
470 1818 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
470 1833 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 1891 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
472 1903 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
472 1968 41 134 7 20 7 8 1 1 0 0
473 1824 9 15 0 2 2 2 0 1 0 0
473 1834 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
474 1967 1 8 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0
475 2037 1 22 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
475 2044 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2094 1 16 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
476 2098 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 2131 11 81 3 2 6 5 1 0 0 0
476 2133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
477 2335 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
477 2376 19 85 1 9 6 5 2 1 0 0
478 1719 4 21 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
478 1763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
479 1899 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
480 1900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
481 1894 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
481 1902 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
482 2188 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
483 2041 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
483 2043 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
487 2138 3 9 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
488 2140 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
489 2194 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
489 2212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
490 2378 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
490 2421 0 10 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
491 2213 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
492 2141 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
492 2196 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
493 2201 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
494 2209 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
495 2211 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
495 2242 1 6 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
489
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
496 2210 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
497 2336 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499 2280 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499 2323 4 16 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
500 2333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
501 2326 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
501 2332 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
502 2277 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
502 2281 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
503 2282 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
505 2283 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 2328 6 23 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
506 2334 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
508 2424 3 10 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
508 2451 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
509 2429 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
509 2491 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
510 2456 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
511 2435 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
511 2492 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 2493 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
513 2437 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
513 2494 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
515 2442 1 6 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
515 2453 3 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
517 2454 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
518 2448 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
518 2455 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
520 2450 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
520 2452 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
521 2496 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
522 2497 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
523 2498 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
524 2458 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
526 2460 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
526 2508 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
527 2515 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
529 2518 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
530 2516 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
532 1641 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
532 1643 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1648 1 6 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
533 1649 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1729 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
534 1653 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
490
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
535 1684 0 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
535 1703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1672 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1701 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1732 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
538 1686 4 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0
538 1702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
539 1681 2 11 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0
539 1699 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
539 1737 4 8 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0
540 1746 2 9 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
540 1749 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
541 1752 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
542 1878 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
542 1880 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
543 1881 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
546 1689 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
546 1705 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 1695 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
548 1698 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
549 1700 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
550 1789 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
551 1793 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
551 1813 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
552 1796 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
552 1814 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
553 1884 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
554 1808 6 11 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0
554 1815 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
555 1805 4 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
556 1758 1 14 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0
556 1762 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
556 2109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
557 1835 3 10 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
558 1846 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
558 1847 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
559 1904 4 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
559 1917 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
560 2052 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
560 2102 8 24 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
561 1913 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
561 1976 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
562 1919 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
563 1981 1 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
563 1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
491
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
563 2056 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
564 2049 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
564 2051 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
565 2145 3 6 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
566 2104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
566 2108 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
567 2149 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
568 1986 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
569 1990 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
569 1995 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 1992 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 1996 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 2017 5 23 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 2
571 2022 14 48 1 4 2 5 1 0 0 0
572 2029 29 100 4 4 2 10 1 0 0 1
572 2032 3 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
574 2092 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
574 2093 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
575 2154 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
576 2159 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
577 2230 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 2236 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
578 2232 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
578 2239 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
581 2286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
582 2165 4 16 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
582 2169 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
583 2170 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
583 2215 2 9 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
584 2167 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
586 2237 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
587 2221 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
588 2238 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
589 2228 4 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
589 2240 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 2342 4 51 7 4 6 5 0 7 0 0
590 2358 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
591 2348 1 14 1 2 0 5 0 1 0 0
591 2359 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
592 2354 12 44 3 7 2 5 0 0 0 0
592 2360 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
593 2381 14 37 3 3 3 5 1 0 0 0
593 2394 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
594 2393 7 36 6 6 4 5 1 1 0 0
594 2395 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
492
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
594 2474 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
595 2485 6 21 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0
595 2487 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
596 2488 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
596 2525 9 32 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0
598 2361 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
599 2472 3 11 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0
599 2489 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
600 2490 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
601 2524 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
601 2540 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
602 2553 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
604 2549 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
606 2552 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
607 2398 5 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
607 2406 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
608 2403 1 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
608 2407 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
608 2464 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
609 2463 3 8 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0
610 2529 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
610 2554 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
611 2530 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
611 2559 12 12 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
612 2531 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
612 2561 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
613 2532 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
613 2563 3 33 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0
614 2536 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
614 2566 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 2571 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
615 2592 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
616 2574 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
617 2576 11 9 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 0
618 2469 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
619 2533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
619 2577 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
620 2535 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
621 2534 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
622 2581 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
622 2590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
623 2585 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
623 2594 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
624 2595 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
625 2591 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
493
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
626 2593 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
628 2596 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
629 2600 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
629 2612 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
630 2604 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
630 2613 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
631 2607 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
631 2614 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
632 2608 4 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
633 2689 1 7 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
633 2693 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
634 2610 2 5 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0
634 2616 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
635 2662 7 12 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
635 2692 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
636 2664 3 8 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
636 2695 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 2668 1 9 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
638 2671 6 12 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0
638 2696 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
639 2673 2 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
639 2694 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
640 2678 6 28 4 2 0 1 0 1 0 0
641 2683 7 13 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
643 2698 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
645 2759 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
646 2618 0 13 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
646 2647 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
647 2638 4 14 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0
647 2653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
648 2623 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
649 2645 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
651 2704 2 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
651 2730 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
652 2630 5 3 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0
652 2651 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
653 2711 4 6 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
653 2732 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
654 2636 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
654 2652 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
656 2728 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
657 2726 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
658 2723 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
658 2733 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
661 2768 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
494
Xanthochorus buxea
Thais haemastoma
Nassarius dentifer
Prisogaster niger
Scutalus proteus
Thais chocolata
Polinices uber
Sinum cymba
Tegula atra
Context
Bag
662 2770 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2740 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
664 2744 5 7 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
664 2764 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 2747 1 7 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
665 2763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
667 2751 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
667 2771 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
669 2765 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Table A.8. Shellfish data 2

Perumytilus purpuratus
Argopecten pupuratum
Platyxanthus orbignyi
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Olivella columellaris
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
2 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 72 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
4 73 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 122 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
6 165 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1
7 218 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 79 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10 115 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
10 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 125 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13 174 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 215 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 221 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 316 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
17 318 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 325 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 322 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
18 326 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 327 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
495
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
19 368 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
20 375 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 392 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 394 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
21 377 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 393 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 391 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 382 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 383 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
26 390 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27 387 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
29 407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 409 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 411 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 40 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
34 416 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
37 454 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
38 455 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 460 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
40 463 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
41 470 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
42 468 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 474 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
43 477 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
44 23 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 24 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
45 32 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
46 57 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
46 59 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 63 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 65 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 95 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
47 108 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
48 105 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
48 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
49 111 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
49 147 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 155 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
50 161 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 200 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
51 204 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
51 205 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 52 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52 207 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
496
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
52 250 46 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
53 273 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 274 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
53 297 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 27 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
54 33 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 31 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 35 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56 54 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
57 36 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 100 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
59 110 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 356 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 365 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 101 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
61 112 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
62 159 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
63 160 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 198 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 206 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64 252 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
64 268 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
65 307 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
65 310 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 208 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
66 256 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 269 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
67 262 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
67 270 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
68 265 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
68 271 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 300 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 311 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
69 312 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 313 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72 359 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
76 50 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77 47 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
78 91 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
79 86 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
80 132 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 141 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80 142 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
497
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
80 187 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 83 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
81 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
82 138 150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
82 143 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
83 180 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
85 279 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
86 236 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
86 244 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 239 34 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 245 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 283 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
87 293 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 294 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 246 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 288 173 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 290 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
89 331 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 340 45 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 345 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
91 335 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 346 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92 399 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93 347 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
94 422 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
94 448 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 397 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
95 420 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
95 481 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
98 483 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
99 501 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
102 140 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
104 194 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
105 224 145 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
106 175 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
107 296 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 343 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 344 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 403 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
109 563 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 430 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
111 432 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 433 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
112 436 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 438 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
498
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
114 439 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
114 442 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
115 444 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
115 447 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
116 564 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
117 506 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
117 510 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 487 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
118 489 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 491 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 494 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
121 533 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
122 536 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
123 556 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
124 539 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
125 540 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126 551 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
127 553 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
128 514 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
129 522 78 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
130 529 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
131 569 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
132 588 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
133 595 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
134 600 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 641 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
137 592 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
138 603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
139 605 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
140 614 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
143 616 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
144 618 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
145 619 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
146 622 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
147 627 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
148 629 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 634 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
150 637 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
151 640 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
153 659 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
154 662 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
155 665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
156 667 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
157 669 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
158 715 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
159 716 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
160 723 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
162 729 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
163 784 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
163 785 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
163 786 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
164 791 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
165 790 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
167 648 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 649 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
169 652 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
170 679 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
171 682 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
172 686 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
174 670 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
174 673 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
176 738 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
177 733 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
178 735 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
179 697 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
180 702 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
181 706 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
182 711 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
184 691 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
185 761 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
186 762 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
187 765 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
188 780 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
189 768 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
190 771 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
192 808 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
194 811 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
197 741 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
198 746 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
199 751 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
200 799 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
201 803 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
203 819 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
203 929 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
204 825 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
204 936 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
205 865 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
205 939 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
206 871 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
500
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
206 942 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
207 876 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
207 887 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1
207 946 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
208 957 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
208 995 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
209 1005 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
210 1009 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
211 1048 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
212 853 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
212 921 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
213 858 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
214 860 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
214 924 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
216 928 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
217 1030 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
218 1033 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
219 1035 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
220 1039 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
221 1044 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
222 1089 8 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
223 1093 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
225 1103 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
226 1099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
227 1105 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
229 829 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
230 834 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
231 837 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
232 843 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
233 848 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 849 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
234 892 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
236 895 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
237 910 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
238 903 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
238 906 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
239 915 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
241 963 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 970 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
242 972 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
244 976 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
245 980 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
246 984 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
246 986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
247 992 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
501
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
248 1017 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
249 898 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
250 967 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
254 1025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
256 1110 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
257 1112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
258 1115 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
259 1119 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
260 1122 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
261 1159 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
262 1163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263 1164 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
263 1181 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 1177 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
264 1182 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
266 1060 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
266 1212 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
269 1213 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 1075 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
270 1216 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
271 1081 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
272 1127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
272 1220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
273 1130 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
273 1292 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
275 1135 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
276 1141 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
278 1148 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
278 1152 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
279 1187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
280 1190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
280 1192 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
281 1195 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
282 1202 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
283 1295 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
285 1057 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
286 1204 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
287 1155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
288 1157 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
289 1225 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
290 1227 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
291 1230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
292 1232 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
295 1258 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
296 1264 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
502
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
297 1267 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
298 1271 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
299 1274 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 1275 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
301 1281 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
303 1311 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
304 1306 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
305 1314 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
305 1319 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
306 1323 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
306 1326 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
307 1366 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
308 1369 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
310 1371 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
311 1248 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
314 1242 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
317 1250 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
318 1256 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
318 1327 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
319 1330 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
320 1333 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
321 1349 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
322 1336 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
323 1340 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
324 1360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
325 1352 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
327 1363 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
328 1420 66 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2
329 1429 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
330 1432 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 1436 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
331 1442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
332 1475 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
333 1484 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1
334 1487 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
334 1492 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
336 1503 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
337 1513 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
337 1516 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
338 1555 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
338 1559 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
339 1508 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
342 1568 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
342 1571 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
343 1364 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
503
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
344 1373 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
345 1375 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
346 1376 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
347 1382 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
348 1384 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
349 1388 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
350 1391 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
351 1395 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
352 1445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
353 1447 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
355 1454 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
358 1399 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
359 1402 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
360 1413 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
361 1408 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
361 1411 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
361 1417 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
362 1462 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 1 1
363 1470 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0
363 1473 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
364 1523 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0
365 1525 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
365 1533 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1
366 1529 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
367 1540 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
368 1545 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1
369 1550 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
370 1579 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0
371 1580 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
373 1585 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
374 1589 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
377 1595 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
378 1599 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
379 1610 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
379 1613 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
380 1605 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
381 1615 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 1603 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
382 1609 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
384 1623 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
384 1626 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
385 1658 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
385 1660 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
387 1710 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1713 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
504
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
388 1718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
388 1764 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
389 2412 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
389 2417 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
400 1766 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1770 91 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
401 1784 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
401 1848 113 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
401 1872 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
402 1998 46 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
402 2012 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
402 2013 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
403 2003 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
403 2014 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
404 2122 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
404 2177 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
404 2180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
405 1628 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
405 1631 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406 1706 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
406 1708 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
408 1774 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
408 1782 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
409 1781 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
409 1854 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
410 1858 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
410 1874 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
410 1955 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 1861 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
411 1875 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 1864 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
412 1876 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 1779 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
413 1783 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 1868 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
414 1873 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
415 1923 22 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
415 1957 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
416 1927 76 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
416 1953 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
417 1933 49 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
417 1954 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 1938 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
418 1959 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
419 1941 15 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
505
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
419 1958 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1870 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1871 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420 1945 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
421 1960 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
422 1949 35 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
423 1952 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
423 1956 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424 2009 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
424 2016 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
425 2015 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
425 2063 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
426 2068 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
426 2080 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
427 2069 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
427 2083 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
428 2073 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
428 2085 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
429 2081 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 2078 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
430 2082 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
431 2084 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
432 2087 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
433 2086 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 2113 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
434 2118 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
436 2111 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 2126 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
437 2116 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
437 2127 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
438 2121 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
441 2124 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
442 2173 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
442 2181 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
443 2175 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
443 2183 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
444 2184 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
445 2185 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
447 2306 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
447 2315 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
448 2317 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
448 2363 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
449 2369 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
449 2372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
450 2243 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
450 2265 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
451 2248 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
451 2268 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
452 2251 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
452 2267 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
455 2270 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
456 2269 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
458 2294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
459 2298 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
459 2314 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
460 2254 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
460 2271 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
462 2299 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
462 2319 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
463 2302 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
463 2318 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
464 2313 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
465 2312 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
466 2311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
467 1634 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
467 1636 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
468 1664 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
469 1726 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
470 1818 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
470 1833 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
471 1891 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472 1903 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
472 1968 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
473 1824 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
473 1834 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
474 1967 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2037 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
475 2044 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2045 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
475 2094 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 2098 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 2131 43 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
476 2133 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
477 2335 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
477 2376 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
478 1719 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
478 1763 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
479 1899 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
480 1900 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
481 1894 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
507
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
481 1902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
482 2188 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
483 2041 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
483 2043 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
487 2138 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
488 2140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
489 2194 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
489 2212 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
490 2378 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
490 2421 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
491 2213 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
492 2141 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
492 2196 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
493 2201 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
494 2209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
495 2211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
495 2242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
496 2210 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
497 2336 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
499 2280 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
499 2323 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
500 2333 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
501 2326 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
501 2332 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
502 2277 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
502 2281 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
503 2282 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
505 2283 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 2328 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
506 2334 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
508 2424 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
508 2451 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
509 2429 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
509 2491 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
510 2456 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
511 2435 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
511 2492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512 2493 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
513 2437 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
513 2494 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
515 2442 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
515 2453 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
517 2454 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
518 2448 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
518 2455 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
508
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
520 2450 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
520 2452 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
521 2496 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
522 2497 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
523 2498 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
524 2458 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
526 2460 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
526 2508 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
527 2515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
529 2518 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
530 2516 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
532 1641 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
532 1643 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1648 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1649 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
533 1729 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
534 1653 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
535 1684 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
535 1703 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1672 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
536 1732 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
538 1686 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
538 1702 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
539 1681 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
539 1699 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
539 1737 16 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
540 1746 28 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
540 1749 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
541 1752 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
542 1878 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
542 1880 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
543 1881 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
546 1689 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
546 1705 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 1695 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
548 1698 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
549 1700 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
550 1789 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
551 1793 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
551 1813 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
552 1796 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
552 1814 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
553 1884 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
554 1808 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
509
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
554 1815 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
555 1805 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
556 1758 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
556 1762 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
556 2109 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
557 1835 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
558 1846 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
558 1847 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
559 1904 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
559 1917 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
560 2052 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
560 2102 40 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
561 1913 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
561 1976 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
562 1919 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
563 1981 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
563 1985 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
563 2056 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
564 2049 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
564 2051 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
565 2145 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
566 2104 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
566 2108 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
567 2149 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
568 1986 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
569 1990 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
569 1995 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 1992 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 1996 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
570 2017 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
571 2022 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
572 2029 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
572 2032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
574 2092 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
574 2093 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
575 2154 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
576 2159 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 2230 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
577 2236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
578 2232 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
578 2239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
581 2286 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
582 2165 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
582 2169 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
583 2170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
510
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
583 2215 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
584 2167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
586 2237 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
587 2221 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
588 2238 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
589 2228 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
589 2240 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 2342 44 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 2358 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
591 2348 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
591 2359 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
592 2354 27 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
592 2360 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
593 2381 26 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
593 2394 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
594 2393 28 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
594 2395 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
594 2474 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
595 2485 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
595 2487 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
596 2488 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
596 2525 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
598 2361 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
599 2472 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
599 2489 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
600 2490 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
601 2524 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
601 2540 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
602 2553 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
604 2549 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
606 2552 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
607 2398 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
607 2406 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
608 2403 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
608 2407 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
608 2464 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
609 2463 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
610 2529 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
610 2554 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
611 2530 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
611 2559 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
612 2531 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
612 2561 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
613 2532 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
613 2563 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
511
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
614 2536 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
614 2566 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 2571 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
615 2592 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
616 2574 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
617 2576 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
618 2469 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
619 2533 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
619 2577 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
620 2535 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
621 2534 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
622 2581 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
622 2590 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
623 2585 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
623 2594 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
624 2595 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
625 2591 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
626 2593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
628 2596 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
629 2600 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
629 2612 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
630 2604 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
630 2613 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
631 2607 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
631 2614 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
632 2608 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
633 2689 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
633 2693 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
634 2610 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
634 2616 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
635 2662 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
635 2692 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
636 2664 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
636 2695 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
637 2668 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
638 2671 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
638 2696 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
639 2673 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
639 2694 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
640 2678 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
641 2683 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
643 2698 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
645 2759 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
646 2618 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
646 2647 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
512
Choromytilus chorus
Semimytilus algosus
Fissurella maxima
Semele corrugata
Protothaca thaca
Donax obesulus
Aulacomya ater
Mitra orientalis
Balanus sp.
Context
Bag
647 2638 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
647 2653 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
648 2623 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
649 2645 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
651 2704 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
651 2730 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
652 2630 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0
652 2651 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
653 2711 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
653 2732 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
654 2636 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
654 2652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
656 2728 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
657 2726 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
658 2723 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
658 2733 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
661 2768 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
662 2770 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
663 2740 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
664 2744 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
664 2764 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 2747 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
665 2763 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
667 2751 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
667 2771 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
669 2765 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
513
Appendix E
CERAMIC DATA AND STYLISTIC ANALYSIS
514
Key
Type-(see description of types) 2=everted

3=incurving
Thickness (average, mm.) 4=carinated
4.1=sharp carination
Color 4.2=soft carination
1=orange 5=C-shape
2=red 6=S-shape
3=brown 7=platform
4=gray 8=other
8=other 9=unknown
Rim type, cont
Temper size 10=concave
1=fine (<2.5mm)
2=medium (2.5-5mm) Rim diameter (cm)
3=large (5mm-1cm)
4=very large (>1cm) Lip type
1=round
Temper type 2=square/flat
1=sand 3=indented
2=shell 4=pointed
3=stone 8=other
8=other
9=unknown Neck type
1=straight
Firing 2=everted
1=complete 3=incurving
2=incomplete 4=faceneck
5=undulating
Part 8=other
1=body 9=unknown
2=rim
3=neck/shoulder Neck height
4=base (height from lip to shoulder)
5=handle
8=other Lip-Carination height
9=unknown (distance from lip to carination)
Rim type Carination-shoulder height

1=straight (distance from carination to
515
shoulder) 2.3=cream and red
2.4=black
Base 2.5=cream and black
1=flat 2.6=red and black
2=low ring 2.7=cream, red, black
3=high ring 2.8=other
4=rounded 3=burnished
8=other 8=other
9=unknown 9=unknown
Base height Interior finish

(for ring bases; height from ground (same codes as exterior finish)
to bottom of vessel)
Decoration
Spout 0=no decoration
1=round 1=paleteada
2=square 1.1=square
3=D-shape 1.2=rhombus
1.3=square with circle
1.4=linear
Handle 1.5=combination
1=flat/strap 1.6=spiral
2=D-shape 1.7=other
3=round 2=applique
4=molded (adorno) 3=molded
5= pierced lug 3.1 piel de ganso or related
6=unpierced lug 3.2 Lambayeque press-
7=two strands molded
8=three strands 3.3 faceneck or related
9=unknown Decoration, cont.
10=other 4=incised
8=other
Body 9=unknown
1=present
Usewear
Exterior finish 0=none
0=no finish 1=fire-blackening
1=slip 2=hole
2=paint 8=other
2.1=cream 9=unknown
2.2=red
516
Typology
Olla
The majority of ollas at Pedregal had carinated rims, a common feature of LIP
assemblages in the Jequetepeque (Prieto 2005; Swenson 2004). I divided carinated rims into
two broad types (B and C), with Type A designated to include carinated rims that I could not
confidently assign to either B or C. Types B and C were distinguished qualitatively by looking at
neck height, the extent to which the carination was pronounced or soft, and overall shape. After
analysis, quantitative data on neck height and carination angle showed a significant difference
between Types B and C, suggesting that my qualitative designation of two types captured a real
distinction in the assemblage. In Type B, the rim is relatively evenly divided by the carination,
while in Type C, the distance from the lip to the carination is shorter than the distance from the
carination to the base of the neck. Type B also tends to have a more pronounced carination, as
shown by the mean carination extent measure, and a shorter neck. Carinated olla types were
further subdivided based on whether the portion of the rim between the lip and carination angled
inward, creating a rim with an overall vertical profile, as in Figure A.3a below, or whether this
portion of the rim was vertical, creating a set back right angle, as in Figures A.3b and d below.
Table A.9. Olla carination and neck height by type
TMean carination Mean carination Mean neck height (mm)

Type ratio a/b extent (a+b)/c
B 1.015 1.015 21.9

C 0.856 .857 25.7
517
Figure A.1 Carination measurements
Figure A.2. Ceramic drawing key
There was little change in proportions of carinated olla types between the early and late
LIP (Table A.10). Proportions of Types A, B, and C ollas all increased slightly from the early to
late LIP. In all three types, subtype 1 increased in proportion and subtype 2 decreased in
proportion from the early to late LIP. In other words, olla rims became more set back and less
vertical through time. Mean neck height decreased through time from 23.4 mm in the early LIP
to 20.8 mm. in the late LIP. The shape of carination, measured by the ratio of the distance from
lip to carination (‘a’ in Figure A.1) to the distance from neck to carination (‘b’ in Figure A.1), also
changed on average, with a mean ratio of .824 (a high carination) in the early LIP and a mean
ratio of .953 (a carination that falls evenly between lip and neck) in the late LIP. In other words,
while there was no significant difference in the proportions of the qualitatively assigned Types B
and C through time, olla rim shape did change quantitatively through time, from a higher neck, a
high carination and a more vertical profile (more typical of Type C) to a shorter neck with a
centrally-placed carination and a more set back profile (more typical of Type B) (but see Prieto
2005:173-179 for a different sequence from San José de Moro).
518
Type A=indeterminate carination
A1=indeterminate vertical profile
A2=indeterminate set back profile
Type B=pronounced carination, short neck (similar to Swenson 17:5 and 21:6)
B1= lip vertical in profile (Fig A.3a)
B2=lip set back in profile (Fig A.3b, d)
Type C=slight/soft carination, long neck (similar to Swenson 18:5)

C1=lip vertical in profile (Fig A.4a)
C2=lip set back in profile (Fig A.4b, d)
Figure A.2. Type B ollas
519
Figure A.3. Type C ollas
51.4% of carinated ollas (types A, B, and C) had paint on the exterior of the lip and neck.
White paint, applied in a band around the lip, was the most common, present on 42% of
carinated olla rim sherds. Six carinated olla sherds had evidence of paleteado designs on the
shoulder and body of the vessel (see Figure A.5 for examples of paleteado patterns from
Pedregal), and one sherd had a press-molded band on the shoulder (see Figure A.6 for
examples of geometric press-molded bands from Pedregal).
520
Figure A.4. Examples of paleteado motifs
Figure A.5. Examples of press-molded bands
521
Type D ollas were defined on the basis of their high undulating necks (Figure A.6). Mean
neck height for Type D ollas was 30.8 mm. Similar ollas have been described as Middle Sicán
by Tschauner (2001:Figure A.10) in the Lambayeque region and as Lambayeque at Farfán
(Mackey and Jáuregui 2003). These ollas made up a much smaller proportion of the
assemblage than did carinated ollas (Table A.10). Like carinated ollas, over half of Type D ollas
(53.8%) had white paint on the exterior of the lip and neck. This type decreased almost
imperceptibly (.4%) in proportion from the early to late LIP.
Figure A.6. Type D ollas
Type D=sinuous neck (Lambayeque olla)

D1=high vertical neck with C-shaped rim (Swenson 31:6)
D2=high vertical neck with everted rim (Fig A.7b, c) (similar to Swenson 22:6)
D3=undulating, inward-curving neck with C-shaped or everted rim (Fig A.7a)
(similar to Swenson 27:6)
522
Types G and H made up a small proportion of the assemblage (Table A.10), but were
distinguished not only by their form but by their tendency to be reduction-fired and burnished.
Both forms, the neckless Type G and the bulbous-lipped Type H have been described in Late
Horizon burials at Farfán (Mackey and Jáuregui 2004) and in Chimú and Chimú-Inka contexts at
Chan Chan (Mackey personal communication). Tschauner (2001: Figure A.12) assigns globular
(Type G1 and G2) ollas to the Chimú period. Both types often have small round or strap
handles, as in Figures A.8 and A.9. Type G increased from less than 2% to more than 5% of the
assemblage from the early to late LIP, even though this type never represented a substantial
proportion of the assemblage.
Type G=neckless olla

G1=neckless with round lip (Fig A.8a)
G2=neckless with flat lip (Fig A.8b)
Type H=round/bulbous lip
H1=vertical rim (Fig A.9b, c)
H2=C-shaped rim (Fig A.9a)
523
Figure A.7. Type G ollas
Figure A.8. Type H ollas
524
Another distinctive olla type at Pedregal is Type J, the platform olla. Type J is
distinguished by an upcurving, flaring platform just below the rim. It is described at Late Moche
sites in the Jequetepeque by Swenson (2004:733) and at Cerro Chepén by Rosas Rintel
(2003:Figure 20).
Type J=platform rim (Fig 54a, b, c) (similar to Swenson 9:3)
Figure A.9. Type J ollas
The following olla types were defined on the basis of at least one sherd at Pedregal, but
were difficult to relate to a specific period or ceramic tradition and, with the exception of Type E,
rare.
Type E=C-shaped rim (similar to Swenson 26:10)

Type F=outcurving/flared rim
Type I=incurving flat band (Fig 54g)
Type K=vertical rim
525
Table A.10. Olla types at Pedregal
Type Subtype Pedregal early LIP late LIP
Olla
n= 600 108 141
A 6.00 8.33 9.22
B total 26.67 21.30 23.40
B1 11.67 7.41 13.48
B2 14.50 13.89 9.22
C total 38.33 38.89 39.01
C1 16.00 18.52 14.89
C2 20.83 18.52 21.99
D total 4.33 4.63 4.26
D1 1.17 2.78 2.13
D2 2.33 1.85 2.13
D3 0.67 0.00 0.00
E 11.17 12.04 9.93
F 1.67 4.63 2.13
G total 2.83 1.85 5.67
G1 1.67 0.00 3.55
G2 1.17 0.00 2.13
H total 1.67 1.85 1.42
H1 1.33 1.85 1.42
H2 0.33 0.00 0.00
I 0.33 0.00 0.00
J 4.50 4.63 1.42
K 0.67 0.00 0.71
unknown 1.83 1.85 2.84
total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Jars
Jars (also known as cántaros) were distinguished from ollas by their relatively higher
necks and more restricted mouths. Jar rims were divided into types primarily on the basis of rim
shape, particularly the extent to which the rim curved out at the lip. Outcurved or flared rims are
associated with Chimú and Chimú-Inka periods by Tschauner (2001: Figure A.9) in the
Lambayeque and at Farfán (Mackey and Jáuregui 2004). Very flaring rims are characteristic of
526
aríbalos and other Chimú-Inka forms. Only 2.5% of Type A jars were reduction fired, compared
with 11% Type B jars.
Type A=vertical/gently outcurving rim (Fig A.11b, d, f) (similar to Swenson’s type 17)
Type B=flaring rim (Fig A.11c, e) (similar to Swenson’s type 18)
Type C=very flaring rim (Fig A.11a)
Figure A.10. Jars A-C
Type E and F jars are associated with the Middle and Late Moche occupations of the
valley. This type has a less-restricted mouth than Types A-C, and tends to have a high, sinuous
neck. Type E and F jars are never reduction-fired blackware, but often have bands of white
paint around the rim or neck. These types are similar to those shown by Swenson (2004: Figure
7.7; types 11, 13, and 15) and Rosas Rintel (2003: Figure 20) for the Late Moche period.
Type E=sinuous (Fig A.13)

E1=concave
E2=convex
E3=vertical and sinuous
Type F=faceneck (Fig A.12 a-e)
527
Figure A.11. Type F jar sherds
Table A.11. Jar types at Pedregal
Jar
n= 403 29 21
A 40.20 51.72 61.90
B 11.91 27.59 9.52
C 0.50 0.00 0.00
E total 36.97 17.24 9.52
E1 5.71 3.45 0.00
E2 20.84 10.34 4.76
E3 7.44 0.00 0.00
F 0.99 0.00 0.00
unknown 10.42 3.45 19.05
total 100.00 100.00 100.00
528
Figure A.12. Type E jars
529
Bowls and plates
Bowls and plates are both relatively shallow vessels with wide, unrestricted mouths.
Bowls (Types A-C) were rounded, with a ring or pedestal base (Figure A.14), while plates (Type
D) had a clear ‘elbow,’ or bend between relatively vertical sides and a relatively flat base (Figure
A.15). Type A was rare (Table A.12); most bowls were Type B or C. Types B and C were
distinguished by the angle of the rim—Type B bowls were shallower, with an flared rim (similar
to Swenson’s type 26) while Type C bowls were deeper, with a more vertical, even incurving rim
(similar to Swenson’s Type 27). Bowls were often decorated with a band of white paint around
the rim, and often with simple geometric patterns of white on the inside of the bowl (Figure
A.14). Some bowls had a geometric, press-molded band on the outside, between the rim and
the base. Similar bowls were reported in the Lambayeque dating to the Middle and Late Sicán
period (Tschauner 2001: Figures A.7 and A.8); Type C bowls predominate in Tschauner’s
illustration of Middle Sicán bowls (Figure A.8), while Type B bowls are more common in his
illustration of Late Sicán bowls (Figure A.7).Similar bowls were also reported in Lambayeque
burials at Farfán (Mackey and Jáuregui 2003; Cutright 2005). Bowl types B and C both
decreased sharply in proportion between the early and late LIP (Table A.12).
530
Figure A.13. Bowls B and C
Figure A.14. Bowl bases
Type A=bowl with outcurving/flaring rim (Swenson 2004 81:26, Prieto 2005:177)
Type B=bowl with slanted outward, slightly incurving rim (Fig A.14b, c, d)
Type C=bowl with more vertical and incurving rim than Type B (Fig A.14a)
531
44% of Type D bowls were reduction-fired. 50.6% were burnished on the exterior, and
54.4% were burnished on the interior. Several sherds (6% of Type D sherds) had mold-made
decoration on the exterior base. While Type D was separated into two subtypes on the basis of
whether the sides were vertical or slightly flaring, I do not think that this difference was very
relevant or diagnostic. This type is similar to Swenson’s type 82:26, to the Chimú plates and
bowls illustrated by Tschauner (2001: Figure A.6) and Prieto (2005:179) and to plates found in
Chimú-Inka burials at Farfán (Mackey and Jáuregui 2004). Some plate sherds had evidence of
press-molded designs on the base. Type D bowls made up and much greater proportion of the
late LIP assemblage as compared to the early LIP assemblage (Table A.12).
Figure A.15. Bowl D
Type D=plate with flat base and pronounced elbow between base and sides
D1=flat or rounded lip, slightly outcurving (Swenson 82:26)
D2=flat, horizontal lip, vertical sides
532
Table A.12. Bowl and plate types at Pedregal
Bowl
n= 377 102 75
A 1.33 0.00 2.67
B 39.26 43.14 34.67
C 30.24 32.35 20.00
D total 21.22 17.65 42.67
D1 9.28 6.86 16.00
D2 9.02 8.82 12.00
unknown 7.96 6.86 9.33
total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Tinajas
Tinajas were easily distinguishable from other forms on the basis of thickness, large
temper, wide mouths, and incomplete firing. Often, the lip was decorated with a band of sloppy
white slip. Several tinaja sherds also had geometric incised designs, such as circles, just below
the rim (Figure A.17). Two broad types were distinguished; Type A had a more sharply incurving
rim, and was much more common, while Type B had a more vertically oriented rim. Similar
tinajas are described by Swenson (2004: Figure 7.9; Types 61:19, 62:20, and 66:20). Types
were subdivided according to lip shape; rounded and square lip profiles were most common.
Type A=incurving rim (Figure A.17a and b)

A1=rounded lip
A2=pointed lip
A3=square lip
A4=indented lip
Type B=vertical rim (Figure A.17c)
B1=rounded lip
B2=pointed lip
B3=square lip
B4=indented lip
Type C=incurving hook
533
Table A.13. Tinaja types at Pedregal
early
Type Subtype Pedregal LIP late LIP
Tinaja
n= 233 34 28
A total 74.25 88.24 78.57
A1 37.34 61.76 57.14
A2 4.72 2.94 3.57
A3 26.61 23.53 17.86
A4 3.86 0.00 0.00
B total 12.02 11.76 10.71
B1 3.43 0.00 10.71
B2 0.86 0.00 0.00
B3 6.87 11.76 0.00
B4 0.86 0.00 0.00
C total 3.00 0.00 3.57
unknown 7.30 0.00 7.14
total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Figure A.16. Tinajas A and B
534
Rallador and other forms
Ralladores, or grater bowls, had raised interior ridges that were presumably used to
process soft foods prior to cooking. Four different ridge patterns were observed at Pedregal
(Types A-D). However, the sample is too small to permit the identification of any chronological
patterning of these types (Table A.14).
Figure A.17. Rallador sherds
Figure A.18. Rallador types
535
Type A=semicircle
Type B=linear
Type C=rows of half-circles
Type D=scales
Other forms identified at Pedregal include fineware bottle sherds and fineware sherds in
general (highly decorated but unidentifiable as to form). These forms made only a small
contribution to the overall assemblage (Table A.14).
Table A.14. Rallador and other types at Pedregal
early
Type Subtype Pedregal LIP late LIP
Rallador
n= 17 5 2
A 47.06 60.00 100.00
B 23.53 40.00 0.00
C 11.76 0.00 0.00
D 5.88 0.00 0.00
unknown 11.76 0.00 0.00
total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Bottle n= 7 0 1
aryballoid 14.29 0.00 0.00
Other n= 35 5 6
Unknown n= 344 49 64
536
Diagnostic ceramics by sherd
Table A.15. Ceramic data 1
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
0 1 1 olla B1 7.98 1 1 1 1 2 4 8 1 0 19.93

0 1 2 olla B1 4.79 1 1 1 1 2 4 8 1 0 19.07
0 1 3 olla B2 7.22 2 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 24.66
0 1 4 olla D3 7 1 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 34.04
0 1 5 olla B2 8.11 3 2 3 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 26.41
0 1 6 olla B2 6.12 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 17.15
0 1 7 bowl B 6.66 4 1 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
0 1 8 bowl D1 7.93 4 1 1 1 2 2 21 2 0 0
0 1 9 bowl B 7.38 1 1 1 2 2 10 31 4 0 0
0 1 10 grater 15.78 1 1 1 2 2 3 26 1 0 0
0 1 11 unknown 6.43 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 12 fineware 6.27 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2285 1 olla B1 6.66 2 1 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 19.94
0 2285 2 botella 4.65 4 1 1 1 2 1 2.8 1 0 53.89
0 2285 3 botella 7.26 4 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
0 2655 1 olla B2 6.73 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 18.91
0 2655 2 olla B1 5.49 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 24.04
0 2655 3 olla C2 7.43 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 15 1 0 27.9
0 2655 4 jar B 6.39 2 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 48.24
0 2655 5 unknown 7.9 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2655 6 grater 7.84 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2655 7 unknown 4.19 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2655 8 bowl A 7.16 1 2 3 2 2 2 20 1 0 0
0 2655 9 bowl C 8.65 1 1 1 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
0 2655 10 tinaja A3 14.78 1 4 3 2 2 3 38 2 0 0
0 2773 1 aribalo 4.63 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2774 1 bowl D1 7.63 1 1 1 1 2 2 25 1 0 0
unknown
0 2775 1 bowl 8.05 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2775 2 unknown 3.42 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2775 3 tinaja A1 22.78 2 4 3 2 2 3 48 1 0 0
0 2775 4 tinaja A1 26.22 1 4 3 2 2 3 60 1 0 0
0 2775 5 tinaja A1 13.73 3 4 3 2 2 3 35 1 0 0
unknown
0 2775 6 tinaja 17.82 1 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 41 1 olla G1 5.45 1 2 3 1 2 3 14 1 0 0
2 41 2 unknown 5.41 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
537
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
2 41 3 unknown 3.1 4 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
4 69 1 tinaja A1 30.35 2 4 3 2 2 3 54 1 0 0
4 69 2 olla I 9.96 1 2 3 2 2 3 16 1 0 0
4 69 3 jar C 9.56 4 1 1 2 2 2 15 1 0 0
4 69 4 unknown 4.63 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
4 69 5 unknown 6.18 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
4 69 6 unknown 7.99 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
4 69 7 unknown 6.25 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
6 168 1 bowl B 6.99 1 2 1 1 2 10 17 1 0 0
6 168 2 bowl B 9.68 1 2 1 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
6 168 3 olla B2 9.54 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 15 1 0 24.77
6 168 4 unknown 4.12 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
6 168 5 unknown 5.02 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
6 172 1 olla A 6.08 1 1 1 1 2 4 11 1 0 26.86
9 80 1 olla B2 5.89 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 8 1 0 20.12
9 80 2 jar A 7.65 1 2 1 2 2 2 11 1 0 0
unknown
9 80 3 jar 5.75 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
9 80 4 fineware 3.14 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
9 80 5 fineware 3.05 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
9 80 6 plate 5.2 1 2 3 1 2 10 23 1 0 0
9 80 7 plate 4.81 1 2 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
9 80 8 bowl 7.63 1 2 3 2 2 10 24 1 0 0
unknown
10 118 1 tinaja 15.81 3 4 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 0
10 123 1 olla C1 6.9 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 7 1 0 0
10 123 2 olla D2 6.26 1 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 24.29
10 123 3 olla D2 8.09 3 2 3 1 2 5 12 1 0 38.68
10 123 4 bowl C 8.4 1 2 3 2 2 10 16 1 0 0
10 123 5 tinaja B2 25.73 2 4 3 2 2 1 35 4 0 0
10 123 6 tinaja A1 28.75 2 4 3 2 2 3 39 1 0 0
10 123 7 tinaja A3 25.7 2 4 3 2 2 3 50 2 0 0
16 317 1 olla B2 4.94 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 0
16 317 2 olla D3 5.65 1 1 1 2 2 5 11 1 0 33.2
16 317 3 unknown 4.34 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
16 317 4 tinaja A3 15.35 3 4 3 2 1 3 36 2 0 0
16 353 1 olla C1 4.32 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
16 353 2 olla C1 8.48 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 29.93
16 353 3 olla A 8.85 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 20
16 353 4 olla E 8.42 3 2 3 1 2 5 15 1 0 18.43
16 353 5 blackware 5.22 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
538
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
unknown
16 353 6 jar 8.96 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
17 319 1 jar B 5.7 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 0 0
18 323 1 bowl B 7.44 1 2 3 1 2 10 24 1 0 0
18 323 2 tinaja B3 11.44 3 2 3 2 2 1 44 2 0 0
18 323 3 olla C2 6.31 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 25.22
18 323 4 unknown 4.28 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
18 323 5 unknown 4.27 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
18 323 6 jar 6.84 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
19 367 1 olla B1 7.5 3 1 3 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 21.84
19 367 2 olla A 7.39 1 1 1 2 2 4 12 1 0 0
19 367 3 olla E 8.08 1 2 3 2 2 5 13 1 0 0
19 367 4 bowl C 7.37 1 1 3 1 2 1 17 1 0 0
19 367 5 bowl B 6.15 1 1 3 1 2 10 14 1 0 0
19 367 6 bowl C 8.69 1 2 3 2 2 10 17 1 0 0
19 367 7 bowl B 9.75 3 1 3 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
19 367 8 tinaja A3 10.08 2 2 3 2 2 3 15 2 0 0
19 367 9 bowl D2 9.75 3 1 1 1 2 2 15 2 0 0
19 367 10 bowl D1 7.69 1 1 1 1 2 2 16 1 0 0
19 367 11 rallador B 8.42 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
20 376 1 olla E 6.11 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 23.95
20 376 2 olla A 6.88 1 1 1 1 2 4 11 1 0 0
20 376 3 olla C1 6.33 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 24.25
20 376 4 bowl C 10 2 2 3 2 2 10 20 2 0 0
20 379 1 olla C2 7.88 1 1 3 2 2 4.2 19 1 0 0
20 379 2 olla C2 7.17 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 26.14
20 379 3 olla C2 7.16 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 23.57
20 379 4 olla C2 7.95 1 1 3 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 28.94
20 379 5 olla C2 5.58 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 32.06
unknown
20 379 6 olla 7.43 1 1 1 1 2 1 12 1 0 26.79
20 379 7 olla C2 5.99 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 14 1 0 0
20 379 8 bowl B 5.48 3 1 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
20 379 9 bowl D1 7.52 1 1 1 1 2 2 18 1 0 0
20 379 10 bowl B 6.74 3 1 1 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
20 379 11 bowl B 7.5 2 1 1 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
20 379 12 bowl B 10.3 2 1 1 1 2 2 23 1 0 0
20 379 13 bowl B 8.65 1 2 3 2 2 10 24 1 0 0
20 379 14 bowl C 7.94 1 2 3 1 2 10 24 1 0 0
20 379 15 bowl B 7.24 2 1 1 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
20 379 16 bowl B 6.73 1 1 3 2 2 10 27 1 0 0
20 379 17 bowl B 9.84 4 2 3 1 2 10 27 1 0 0
539
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
20 379 18 bowl C 8.27 1 2 3 2 2 10 17 1 0 0
20 379 19 unknown 8.34 1 1 1 2 2 10 24 1 0 0
20 379 20 olla C2 8.15 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 26.07
20 379 21 tinaja A1 23.34 3 4 3 2 2 3 38 1 0 0
20 379 22 tinaja B3 15.59 3 4 3 2 2 3 16 2 0 0
20 379 23 tinaja A1 27.46 1 4 3 2 2 3 47 1 0 0
unknown
20 379 24 bowl 5.26 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
20 379 25 unknown 8.19 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
27 388 1 olla C2 6.91 2 1 3 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 20.56
29 406 1 olla E 4.64 1 1 3 1 2 5 10 1 0 0
29 406 2 olla B2 7.5 4 2 3 1 2 4.1 13 1 0 18.98
29 406 3 jar B 8.25 2 1 3 2 2 2 16 3 0 0
unknown
31 410 1 tinaja 15.8 3 3 3 2 2 2 32 1 0 0
32 412 1 jar A 7.31 1 1 3 1 2 1 8 1 0 0
32 412 2 olla J 9.46 1 2 3 2 2 7 15 1 0 0
38 475 1 olla J 7.66 3 2 3 1 2 7 13 1 0 0
38 475 2 jar A 10.99 1 1 1 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
38 475 3 jar A 7.25 2 2 3 2 2 2 20 1 0 0
40 465 1 jar E2 9.25 3 2 3 4 3 5 24 1 0 0
44 19 1 unknown 4.91 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
44 21 1 olla B2 7.32 3 2 3 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 21.76
44 21 2 olla C1 10.89 1 3 3 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 0
44 21 3 olla B2 8.11 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 13 1 0 22.9
44 21 4 olla A 6.7 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
44 21 5 unknown 5.5 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
44 21 6 unknown 5.24 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
44 21 7 unknown 4.06 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
44 21 8 bowl B 6 4 2 3 1 2 10 29 1 0 0
44 21 9 bowl D1 13.5 4 1 1 1 2 2 30 1 0 0
44 21 10 unknown 6.98 1 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
45 22 1 olla B2 8.04 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 0
45 22 2 olla C2 6.53 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 22.89
45 22 3 tinaja A3 19.86 1 4 3 1 2 3 30 2 3 0
45 22 4 bowl D1 8.56 3 1 1 1 2 2 28 2 0 0
unknown
45 22 5 jar 4.09 3 2 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
45 22 6 olla 7.2 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
46 68 1 olla C2 7.85 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 12 0 0 0
46 68 2 olla A 7.63 3 1 1 1 2 4 8 1 0 22.5
46 68 3 olla C 8.55 1 2 1 2 2 4.1 7 1 0 0
540
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
46 68 4 olla H1 5.3 3 1 1 2 2 1 6 1 0 20.6
unknown
46 68 5 bowl 8.85 3 3 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
46 68 6 unknown 4.68 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
46 68 7 unknown 5.15 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
46 68 8 unknown 5.7 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
46 68 9 olla A 7.25 1 1 1 1 2 4 0 1 0 0
unknown
46 68 10 olla 6.45 1 2 1 2 2 9 15 1 0 0
46 68 11 bowl D1 6.5 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 0 0
48 107 1 olla C1 8.25 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 6 1 0 28.85
48 107 2 olla C1 7.19 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 8 1 0 0
unknown
48 107 3 olla 6.04 1 1 1 1 2 5 8 1 0 0
48 107 4 olla B1 9.05 3 2 3 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 22.69
48 107 5 olla C 11.33 1 3 3 2 2 4.2 14 1 0 29.92
48 107 6 bowl C 7.22 1 3 3 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
48 107 7 unknown 6.52 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
48 107 8 tinaja A1 23.6 1 3 3 2 2 3 40 1 0 0
unknown
48 107 9 tinaja 23.79 1 4 3 2 2 2 42 1 0 0
48 107 10 unknown 7.46 4 1 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 0
48 107 11 unknown 7 3 3 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 0
48 107 12 rallador A 8.77 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
49 148 1 olla B2 9.12 2 2 1 2 2 4.1 14 1 0 21.57
49 148 2 unknown 7.8 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
49 148 3 unknown 4 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
49 148 4 tinaja B1 29.32 1 4 3 2 2 3 42 1 0 0
49 148 5 olla B 6.89 1 2 3 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 20.4
50 158 1 olla B1 6.08 1 2 3 2 2 4.1 8 1 0 0
50 158 2 olla B1 9 3 2 3 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 23.62
50 158 3 olla B1 8.37 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 10 1 0 26.65
50 158 4 olla B2 7.35 1 2 3 2 2 4.1 11 1 0 21.85
50 158 5 olla E 5.84 4 1 1 1 1 5 7 1 0 0
50 158 6 jar E 4.9 1 1 1 1 1 6 11 1 5 0
50 158 7 unknown 5.84 1 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
50 158 8 unknown 5.08 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
50 158 9 unknown 5.1 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
51 201 1 olla B1 10.49 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 0 1 0 22.5
52 258 1 olla B2 6.5 1 2 3 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 20.9
52 258 2 olla C1 7.69 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 24.92
52 258 3 olla B1 5.38 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 8 1 0 17.41
52 258 4 olla D1 4.95 1 2 3 2 2 8 11 1 0 28.8
541
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
52 258 5 olla A 8.5 4 1 1 1 2 4 11 1 0 20.7
52 258 6 olla F 7.3 3 2 3 2 2 2 22 1 0 0
52 258 7 tinaja A3 26.01 2 4 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 0
52 258 8 bowl C 8.02 3 3 3 1 2 10 23 1 0 0
52 258 9 jarra B 8.57 1 1 1 2 2 2 15 1 2 0
52 258 10 unknown 5 3 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
52 258 11 unknown 6.5 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
53 299 1 olla B1 6.57 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 19.6
53 299 2 olla C1 8.43 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 31.67
unknown
53 299 3 bowl 10.56 1 3 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
53 299 4 bowl B 7.68 4 1 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
53 299 5 bowl B 8.61 4 1 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
53 299 6 bowl B 8.64 4 3 3 1 2 10 23 1 0 0
53 299 7 bowl C 8.14 4 1 1 1 2 10 10 1 0 0
53 299 8 bowl C 6.3 1 2 3 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
53 299 9 bowl B 6.73 1 3 3 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
unknown
53 299 10 olla 5.23 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
53 299 11 unknown 6.5 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
53 299 12 unknown 4.02 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
54 26 1 olla C2 6.42 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 24.6
54 26 2 unknown 5.17 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
54 26 3 unknown 4.41 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
55 30 1 unknown 11.16 1 2 1 2 2 2 23 1 0 0
55 30 2 unknown 5.63 1 1 1 2 2 1 17 1 0 0
55 30 3 bowl D 8.6 1 1 1 1 2 1 15 1 0 0
55 30 4 olla A 9 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 13 1 0 25.26
55 30 5 tinaja B1 26.48 1 4 3 2 2 1 40 1 0 0
55 30 6 unknown 8.28 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
56 35 1 adorno 15.26 3 1 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0
56 67 1 olla J 7.33 3 2 3 1 2 7 10 1 0 22.7
56 67 2 olla C1 6.47 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 27.6
56 67 3 olla E 9.75 4 1 1 1 2 5 14 1 0 24.1
56 67 4 olla A 7.04 1 2 3 1 2 4 15 1 0 0
56 67 5 olla C 4.56 1 3 3 1 2 4.2 16 1 0 0
56 67 6 unknown 5.83 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
64 202 1 olla A 6.52 2 2 3 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 0
64 202 2 olla C2 8.01 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 17.93
64 202 3 olla A 8.48 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 0 0
64 202 4 olla E 5.52 4 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 31.08
64 202 5 olla C1 6.1 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 27.18
64 202 6 jarra A 6.36 1 1 1 1 2 2 17 1 2 0
542
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
unknown
64 202 7 jar 5.54 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
64 202 8 unknown 4.7 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
64 259 1 olla D2 4.53 1 1 1 2 2 5 8 1 1 0
64 259 2 olla B1 6.94 3 2 3 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 0
64 259 3 olla C2 7.51 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 25.49
64 259 4 jarra A 5.77 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 5 0
64 259 5 bowl B 7.72 1 2 3 2 2 2 16 2 1 0
64 259 6 olla G1 5.62 4 2 3 1 2 3 7 1 0 0
64 259 7 bowl D 6.45 3 2 3 2 2 2 16 1 0 0
64 259 8 bowl D1 7.96 4 1 1 1 2 2 18 2 2 0
64 259 9 tinaja A1 18.7 1 4 3 2 2 3 43 1 3 0
64 259 10 unknown 3.7 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
64 259 11 unknown 4.5 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
64 259 12 unknown 4.5 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
64 268 1 olla H1 3.55 4 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 0 0
65 309 1 tinaja B1 30.71 1 4 3 2 2 1 52 1 1 0
65 309 2 olla C2 8.25 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 7 1 0 25.53
65 309 3 olla E 9.39 1 2 3 2 2 5 9 1 0 20.4
65 309 4 olla C2 8.52 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 21.72
65 309 5 olla C1 7.86 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 26.61
65 309 6 olla F 4.75 3 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 0 0
65 309 7 bowl B 8.3 1 2 1 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
65 309 8 bowl D1 8.28 3 1 3 1 2 2 29 2 0 0
65 309 9 unknown 7.07 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
65 309 10 unknown 8.57 3 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
65 309 11 unknown 5.66 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
65 309 12 unknown 5.21 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
66 260 1 olla C2 9.14 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 28.6
66 260 2 jarra B 8.42 3 2 3 1 2 2 21 1 2 0
66 260 3 unknown 3.43 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0
68 267 1 bowl C 8.87 1 2 3 2 2 10 27 1 0 0
68 267 2 bowl C 8.76 1 2 3 1 2 10 31 1 0 0
68 267 3 unknown 7.44 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
69 303 1 olla E 6.23 3 2 1 2 2 5 10 1 0 29.9
69 303 2 olla E 6.01 1 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
72 363 1 olla A1 5.35 1 1 1 2 2 4 8 1 0 24.5
72 363 2 olla C 5.84 1 3 3 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
72 363 3 olla E 7 1 1 1 2 2 5 12 1 0 27.37
72 363 4 bowl C 6.2 1 2 1 2 2 10 14 1 0 0
72 363 5 bowl B 6.57 4 2 1 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
feline
72 363 6 head 8.5 1 3 3 1 8 0 0 0 0 0
543
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
74 209 1 tinaja B3 24.62 3 4 3 2 2 1 50 2 0 0
76 48 1 olla C2 6.76 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 16 0 0 26.56
76 48 2 tinaja A1 26.08 1 4 3 2 2 3 51 0 0 0
76 48 3 unknown 4.28 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
76 195 1 olla B2 7.06 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 20.69
76 195 2 olla C2 6.67 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 26.54
76 195 3 olla B2 7.61 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 32.97
76 195 4 olla B2 6.6 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 13 1 0 19.11
76 195 5 olla B2 6.77 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 13 1 0 18.76
76 195 6 olla E 5.61 1 1 1 2 2 5 14 1 0 22.6
76 195 7 olla B1 11.39 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 22.8
76 195 8 olla B1 5.07 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 22.3
76 195 9 olla B2 11.03 3 2 1 2 2 4.1 10 1 0 22.64
76 195 10 olla B1 7.95 1 2 1 2 2 4.1 14 1 0 21.66
76 195 11 olla C1 7.84 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 33.43
76 195 12 olla J 8.72 3 1 1 1 2 7 10 1 0 31.5
76 195 13 olla E 5.55 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 30.4
76 195 14 olla B1 7.86 3 2 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 23.5
76 195 15 olla J 7.9 1 2 3 1 2 7 9 1 0 24.15
76 195 16 olla A 9.72 1 1 1 1 2 4 9 1 0 24.51
76 195 17 olla A 8.77 1 1 1 1 2 4 9 1 0 20.31
76 195 18 olla D2 7.42 3 1 1 1 2 5 11 1 0 31.88
76 195 19 jar B 10.76 1 1 1 2 2 2 7 1 0 0
76 195 20 bowl C 6.64 4 2 1 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
76 195 21 bowl D2 7.28 3 1 1 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
76 195 22 unknown 10.65 1 2 1 2 2 1 34 3 0 0
76 195 23 unknown 10.42 1 3 3 1 2 1 37 2 0 0
76 195 24 bowl D1 6.09 4 1 1 1 2 10 38 2 0 0
76 195 25 unknown 9.04 2 2 3 2 2 1 40 1 0 0
76 195 26 bowl B 9.06 1 1 1 1 2 10 24 1 0 0
76 195 27 bowl B 8.61 1 1 1 2 2 10 30 1 0 0
76 195 28 bowl C 6.56 3 2 3 1 2 10 33 1 0 0
76 195 29 bowl C 5.98 4 1 1 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
76 195 30 bowl B 8.91 3 2 3 1 2 10 26 1 0 0
76 195 31 bowl D2 6.48 3 1 1 1 2 10 17 2 0 0
76 195 32 unknown 4.64 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
76 195 33 unknown 5.75 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
76 195 34 unknown 6.38 3 2 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
76 195 35 unknown 7 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
76 195 36 bowl 4.85 1 2 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
76 195 37 unknown 6.27 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
76 195 38 unknown 4.96 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
544
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
76 195 39 unknown 5.75 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
76 195 40 unknown 6.9 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
76 195 41 tinaja A1 24.84 3 4 3 2 2 3 49 1 0 0
76 195 42 tinaja A1 14.5 1 4 3 2 2 3 55 1 0 0
76 195 43 tinaja A3 16.08 3 4 3 1 2 3 27 2 0 0
76 195 44 tinaja A1 16.4 1 4 3 2 2 3 45 1 0 0
78 92 1 olla C2 5.96 1 1 3 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 22.57
78 92 2 olla E 7.17 3 1 3 1 2 5 14 1 0 0
78 92 3 jar A 6.54 2 1 3 2 2 1 10 1 0 0
78 92 4 unknown 5.95 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
78 92 5 tinaja A1 19.3 1 4 3 2 1 3 52 1 0 0
78 92 6 tinaja A3 17.8 1 3 3 2 1 3 0 2 0 0
79 88 1 tinaja A1 29.36 3 4 3 2 2 3 50 1 0 0
79 88 2 unknown 5.79 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
79 88 3 unknown 5.26 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
80 133 1 olla C2 6.09 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
80 133 2 olla C2 8.24 3 2 1 2 2 4.2 15 1 0 31.22
80 133 3 olla C2 6.57 1 2 1 2 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
80 133 4 bowl B 8.56 3 2 1 1 2 10 16 1 0 0
80 133 5 unknown 5.54 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
80 133 6 jar 12.65 3 2 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
81 191 1 olla B1 9.1 3 2 3 2 2 4.1 13 1 0 20.81
82 139 1 bowl B 8.11 2 2 3 2 2 10 20 1 0 0
82 139 2 bowl C 6.8 4 1 1 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
82 139 3 bowl C 6.4 2 1 1 2 2 10 28 1 0 0
82 139 4 olla C2 7.86 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 33.12
82 139 5 olla C2 7.76 4 1 1 1 2 4.2 16 1 0 0
82 139 6 unknown 4.96 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
82 139 7 unknown 3.99 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
82 143 1 olla B2 8.55 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 18 1 0 21.51
83 189 1 olla C2 10.63 3 2 3 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 33.32
83 189 2 olla D1 7.88 3 2 1 1 2 5 11 1 0 32.15
83 189 3 olla E 5.45 1 1 1 2 2 5 14 1 0 22.47
83 189 4 tinaja A3 13.29 1 4 3 2 2 3 32 2 0 0
83 189 5 olla F 8.38 3 1 3 1 2 2 11 1 0 15.16
83 189 6 unknown 6.9 1 1 1 2 2 1 11 2 0 0
83 189 7 jar A 6.03 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
83 189 8 bowl B 7.15 1 1 3 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
84 190 1 olla C1 7.38 3 2 3 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 13.58
84 190 2 olla B2 7.99 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 10.24
84 190 3 bowl B 8.17 1 2 3 2 2 10 20 1 0 0
85 295 1 olla B1 7.2 1 1 3 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 16.7
545
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
85 295 2 jar A 8.4 1 1 3 1 2 2 11 1 0 0
85 295 3 bowl D 8.09 4 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
85 295 4 tinaja A1 20.88 3 4 3 2 2 3 32 1 0 0
85 295 5 tinaja C 15.51 2 4 3 2 2 3 29 1 0 0
85 295 6 tinaja A1 13.53 1 4 3 2 2 3 46 1 0 0
85 295 7 tinaja A1 24.72 3 4 3 2 2 3 55 1 0 0
85 295 8 tinaja A1 17.12 2 4 3 2 2 3 42 1 0 0
86 237 1 tinaja A3 18.33 2 3 3 2 1 3 36 2 0 0
86 247 1 olla E 5.97 4 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 24.05
86 247 2 olla C2 5.8 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
86 247 3 olla C1 12.42 2 1 3 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 29.07
86 247 4 bowl B 7.15 1 2 3 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
86 247 5 bowl D 5.99 2 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
87 192 1 olla B1 6.17 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 14.48
87 192 2 olla E 5.09 2 1 1 2 2 5 9 1 0 31.55
87 192 3 olla B2 8.21 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 25.82
87 192 4 olla J 7.78 1 2 3 1 2 7 7 1 0 21.55
87 192 5 unknown 8.12 3 2 1 1 2 3 11 1 0 0
87 192 6 bowl C 7.8 2 2 1 2 2 10 14 1 0 0
87 192 7 bowl C 9.35 3 2 1 2 2 10 16 1 0 0
87 192 8 bowl D2 6 4 1 1 1 2 2 18 2 0 0
87 192 9 bowl C 7.6 1 1 1 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
87 192 10 tinaja A3 8.62 3 4 3 2 2 3 25 2 0 0
87 192 11 tinaja A1 19.57 3 4 3 2 2 3 37 1 0 0
87 193 1 bowl D2 5.34 4 1 1 2 8 10 15 2 0 0
87 242 1 olla C2 10.51 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 29.01
87 242 2 jar A 6.75 1 3 3 2 2 1 9 1 0 29.39
87 242 3 olla B1 8.02 4 2 3 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 25.96
87 242 4 olla C2 6.69 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 0
87 242 5 jar A 6.4 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 1 0 0
87 242 6 bowl B 6.4 3 2 3 2 2 10 15 1 0 0
87 242 7 olla E 4.77 4 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 0 0
87 242 8 unknown 3.94 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
87 242 9 bowl A 12.17 1 3 3 2 2 10 37 1 0 0
87 242 10 tinaja A1 13.51 1 4 3 2 2 3 36 1 0 0
87 242 11 tinaja A3 17.66 1 4 3 2 2 3 32 2 0 0
87 242 12 tinaja A1 28.3 1 4 3 2 2 3 47 1 0 0
87 242 13 tinaja A1 19.15 1 4 3 2 2 3 57 1 0 0
unknown
87 292 1 olla 7.42 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 1 0 0
87 292 2 olla C1 5.7 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
87 292 3 olla B1 8.39 2 2 3 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 16.91
87 292 4 unknown 5.07 1 1 1 2 2 1 10 1 0 0
546
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
87 292 5 bowl A 9.08 1 2 1 1 2 10 10 1 0 0
87 292 6 bowl D1 7 4 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
unknown
87 292 7 bowl 7.27 1 2 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
87 292 8 bowl 7.14 3 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
87 292 9 unknown 5.85 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
87 292 10 unknown 6.28 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
87 292 11 unknown 5.37 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
87 292 12 unknown 5.26 2 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
87 292 13 unknown 5.85 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
87 292 14 rallador A 4.23 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
87 292 15 unknown 6.67 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 289 1 olla B2 6.95 2 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 21.65
88 289 2 olla E 5.55 2 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 26.16
88 289 3 olla C1 10.61 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 27.87
88 289 4 olla C1 7.68 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 8 1 0 24.82
88 289 5 olla E 4.92 1 1 1 1 2 5 8 1 0 18.32
88 289 6 olla B1 8.19 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 22.27
88 289 7 olla A 6.94 3 1 1 1 2 4 11 1 0 23.68
88 289 8 olla D2 6.32 1 2 3 2 2 5 12 1 0 32.25
88 289 9 olla C1 7.36 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 25.14
88 289 10 olla A 10.37 3 2 3 1 2 4 12 1 0 23.44
88 289 11 olla E 5.62 2 2 3 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
88 289 12 olla J 7.42 2 2 3 2 2 7 13 4 0 27.43
88 289 13 olla C2 8.17 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 13 1 0 28.09
88 289 14 unknown 7.96 3 2 3 2 2 5 14 9 0 0
88 289 15 olla A 6.97 3 2 1 1 2 4 9 1 0 16.1
88 289 16 olla J 8.94 3 2 1 1 2 7 10 9 0 34.15
88 289 17 olla C1 11.47 1 2 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
88 289 18 bowl C 5.68 3 1 1 1 2 10 22 2 0 0
unknown
88 289 19 bowl 5.92 3 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
88 289 20 bowl B 8.61 1 1 1 1 2 10 24 1 0 0
88 289 21 bowl B 9 4 1 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
88 289 22 bowl C1 9.41 2 3 3 1 2 10 23 1 0 0
88 289 23 bowl C 9.68 3 2 3 1 2 1 13 1 0 0
88 289 24 bowl C 8.74 3 1 1 2 2 10 16 1 0 0
88 289 25 bowl B 9.03 3 2 3 1 2 10 18 1 0 0
88 289 26 bowl B 8.97 1 2 1 1 2 10 18 1 0 0
88 289 27 bowl C 9.55 1 2 3 1 2 10 0 0 0 0
88 289 28 bowl D2 8.55 3 2 3 1 2 10 21 2 0 0
88 289 29 jar A 10.44 1 1 1 1 2 2 21 1 0 0
547
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
88 289 30 unknown 6.76 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0
88 289 31 jar A 7.72 3 1 1 1 2 2 17 1 0 0
88 289 32 bowl B 5.08 1 1 1 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
88 289 33 bowl D2 6.9 1 1 1 1 2 1 20 2 0 0
88 289 34 unknown 6.36 2 2 3 1 2 3 10 1 0 0
88 289 35 bowl C 6 2 1 1 1 2 5 12 1 0 0
88 289 36 jar A 7.89 3 2 3 1 2 2 13 1 0 0
88 289 37 bowl C 5.97 1 2 1 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
88 289 38 bowl C 7.5 3 1 1 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
88 289 39 jar B 11.84 3 2 3 1 2 2 22 1 0 0
88 289 40 jar A 8.58 1 1 1 1 2 2 23 1 0 0
88 289 41 unknown 7.02 1 1 1 2 2 3 26 1 0 0
88 289 42 bowl D 9.19 3 1 1 1 2 2 35 9 0 0
88 289 43 tinaja B3 14.31 3 4 3 1 2 1 52 2 0 0
88 289 44 tinaja A1 27.15 3 4 3 2 2 3 50 1 0 0
88 289 45 tinaja A1 27.23 2 4 3 2 2 3 50 1 0 0
88 289 46 tinaja A1 18.27 3 4 3 2 2 3 41 1 0 0
88 289 47 tinaja A1 22.93 3 4 3 1 2 3 40 1 0 0
88 289 48 tinaja A1 17.35 3 4 3 1 2 3 41 1 0 0
88 289 49 tinaja A1 24.04 3 4 3 1 2 3 50 1 0 0
88 289 50 tinaja A1 19.41 3 4 3 1 2 3 50 1 0 0
88 289 51 tinaja A1 13.5 3 4 3 2 2 3 34 1 0 0
88 289 52 tinaja A1 27.64 3 4 3 2 2 3 38 1 0 0
88 289 53 tinaja A1 13.54 3 3 3 2 2 3 28 1 0 0
88 289 54 tinaja A1 23.94 3 4 3 2 2 3 44 1 0 0
88 289 55 unknown 6.96 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 289 56 unknown 5.68 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 289 57 unknown 4.46 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 289 58 unknown 4.17 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 289 59 unknown 3.91 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 289 60 unknown 11.61 1 2 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 1 olla J 9.32 3 1 3 1 2 7 11 1 0 0
88 291 2 olla C1 4.79 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 23.13
88 291 3 olla C1 6.86 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 31.12
88 291 4 olla B1 8 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 0
88 291 5 olla B1 7.55 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 24.47
88 291 6 olla E 5.42 2 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 0
88 291 7 olla A 8.79 3 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 0 0
88 291 8 olla C2 8.37 2 1 3 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
88 291 9 olla B2 9.89 2 1 3 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 20.06
88 291 10 olla B2 7.79 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 19.74
88 291 11 olla C2 8.11 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 24.79
88 291 12 jar A 6.51 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 0 0
548
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
88 291 13 jar A 5.96 4 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
88 291 14 bowl B 6.19 2 2 3 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
88 291 15 unknown 7.76 1 1 1 1 2 10 16 1 0 0
88 291 16 bowl B 8.88 3 1 3 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
88 291 17 bowl B 7.15 2 1 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
88 291 18 bowl B 7.04 2 2 1 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
88 291 19 bowl D1 7.25 2 1 1 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
88 291 20 bowl D1 6.09 4 1 1 1 2 2 23 2 0 0
88 291 21 bowl B 6.87 3 2 3 2 2 10 27 1 0 0
88 291 22 olla E 4.83 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 0
88 291 23 bowl D1 8.04 1 2 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
88 291 24 bowl D1 6.23 4 1 1 1 2 2 21 2 0 0
88 291 25 tinaja A3 23.22 3 4 3 2 2 3 55 2 0 0
88 291 26 tinaja A1 17.65 2 4 3 2 2 3 35 1 0 0
88 291 27 tinaja A1 27.06 3 4 3 2 2 3 50 1 0 0
88 291 28 unknown 5.66 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 29 unknown 4.77 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 30 unknown 4.74 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 31 unknown 9.16 4 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 32 unknown 8.8 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 33 bowl D 6.46 1 2 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 34 rallador A 6.35 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 35 fineware 3.1 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
88 291 36 rallador B 9.57 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
89 333 1 olla C1 5.63 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 29.77
89 333 2 olla C2 6.08 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 21.77
89 333 3 olla C1 8.47 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 19.87
89 333 4 plato D2 6.15 1 1 1 2 2 2 15 2 0 0
89 333 5 bowl B 11.23 3 2 3 2 2 10 20 1 0 0
89 333 6 bowl C 4.96 1 2 3 2 2 10 16 1 0 0
89 333 7 bowl B 8.25 1 2 3 1 2 10 17 1 0 0
89 333 8 tinaja A3 19.09 1 4 3 1 2 3 46 2 0 0
89 333 9 bowl B 9.33 1 2 3 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
89 333 10 unknown 6.28 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
89 333 11 unknown 5.64 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
89 333 12 unknown 6.43 3 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
89 333 13 unknown 4.7 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
90 341 1 unknown 6.77 1 1 1 2 2 5 7 1 0 0
90 341 2 olla C2 6.16 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 20.11
90 341 3 olla C2 6.12 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 22.75
90 341 4 olla C2 5.45 1 1 3 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
90 341 5 olla C2 4.69 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 21.83
90 341 6 olla A 5.8 1 1 1 1 2 4 13 1 0 0
549
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
90 341 7 tinaja A1 18.43 3 4 3 2 2 3 36 1 0 0
90 341 8 unknown 7.36 1 2 3 2 2 2 13 1 0 0
90 341 9 jar A 6.56 2 1 3 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
90 341 10 bowl C 9.11 1 2 3 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
90 341 11 bowl D2 8.44 4 1 2 1 2 2 18 2 0 0
90 341 12 bowl C 7.19 1 2 3 2 2 10 33 1 0 0
90 341 13 bowl C 7.17 4 1 1 2 2 10 33 1 0 0
90 341 14 unknown 4.78 3 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
90 341 15 unknown 5.35 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
90 341 16 unknown 4.56 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
91 337 1 jar E2 9.37 1 2 3 3 2 5 14 2 0 0
91 337 2 bowl B 8.44 1 2 3 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
91 337 3 unknown 4.34 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
92 401 1 jar A 8.76 3 2 1 1 2 1 22 2 0 0
92 401 2 bowl C 9.01 1 2 3 2 2 10 33 1 0 0
94 426 1 jar A 5.02 1 1 3 2 2 2 6 1 0 0
94 426 2 olla C2 8.02 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 26.45
94 426 3 bowl B 8.99 4 2 3 1 2 10 17 0 0 0
94 426 4 tinaja B3 12.58 1 3 3 2 2 1 26 2 0 0
95 398 1 bowl C 5.36 1 1 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
95 421 1 jar B 8.21 1 1 3 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
95 421 2 jar B 7.38 3 2 3 1 2 2 23 1 0 0
95 479 1 olla D2 9.33 1 2 3 1 2 10 13 1 0 45.7
95 479 2 bowl C 9.5 1 2 3 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
102 126 1 olla C1 5.61 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
105 243 1 olla B2 7.49 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 14 1 0 18.35
105 243 2 olla C2 9.9 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 25.1
105 243 3 olla F 7.2 1 1 3 1 2 2 12 1 0 7.2
105 243 4 jar A 3.16 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 0 0
105 243 5 olla B2 6.59 1 1 3 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 19.03
105 243 6 olla C2 6.35 3 1 3 1 2 4.2 8 1 0 23.12
105 243 7 olla C2 6.3 4 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
105 243 8 olla C2 6.04 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 19.81
105 243 9 olla D1 5.12 1 1 1 2 2 5 10 1 0 27.41
105 243 10 olla E 5.78 1 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 21.23
105 243 11 olla D1 6.8 1 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 30.5
105 243 12 olla E 8.04 1 1 3 1 2 5 11 1 0 26.42
105 243 13 olla E 7.37 1 1 1 2 2 5 16 1 0 29.05
105 243 14 olla C2 8.44 4 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 28.93
105 243 15 olla B2 5.7 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 19.15
105 243 16 olla B2 9.15 1 2 3 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 19.65
105 243 17 olla E 5.46 4 1 1 1 2 5 8 1 0 27
105 243 18 olla A 7.73 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 0 17.52
550
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
105 243 19 olla B2 6.67 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 19.58
105 243 20 olla C1 8.05 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 25.54
105 243 21 olla B2 5.86 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 13 1 0 0
unknown
105 243 22 bowl 6.55 4 2 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 23 olla C1 8.22 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 29.35
105 243 24 olla B2 8.25 4 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 27.29
105 243 25 olla C2 4.57 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
105 243 26 olla A 6.96 2 1 1 2 2 4 15 1 0 0
unknown
105 243 27 bowl 11.87 3 3 3 2 2 10 16 2 0 0
unknown
105 243 28 olla 8.23 1 1 1 1 2 1 16 1 0 0
unknown
105 243 29 jar 8.14 2 2 3 2 2 2 17 3 0 0
105 243 30 bowl C 6.8 3 1 1 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
105 243 31 bowl C 6.51 4 1 1 1 2 10 18 1 0 0
105 243 32 bowl B 8.22 4 1 1 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
105 243 33 bowl C 8.09 3 1 1 1 2 10 17 1 0 0
105 243 34 jar A 6.27 4 1 1 1 2 2 10 1 0 0
105 243 35 bowl C 7.93 4 1 3 1 2 10 11 1 0 0
105 243 36 bowl B 6.91 3 1 1 1 2 2 16 1 0 0
105 243 37 jar E2 8.29 3 2 3 1 2 5 17 3 0 0
105 243 38 bowl B 8.83 1 1 1 2 2 10 22 1 0 0
105 243 39 bowl C 9.54 3 1 3 2 2 10 23 1 0 0
105 243 40 bowl B 9.08 1 2 3 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
105 243 41 bowl B 7.77 4 1 1 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
105 243 42 bowl B 8.82 3 2 3 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
105 243 43 bowl C 6.44 1 2 3 1 2 10 16 1 0 0
105 243 44 bowl B 7.55 1 1 3 1 2 10 16 1 0 0
105 243 45 bowl C 5.84 1 1 1 1 2 10 16 3 0 0
105 243 46 bowl B 5.36 3 2 3 1 2 10 17 1 0 0
105 243 47 bowl B 5.89 1 2 3 1 2 10 12 1 0 0
105 243 48 bowl B 6.42 3 1 3 1 2 2 11 1 0 0
105 243 49 bowl B 7.15 2 1 3 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
105 243 50 bowl B 6.5 1 2 3 2 2 10 15 1 0 0
105 243 51 bowl D1 8.93 4 1 1 1 2 2 12 2 0 0
105 243 52 bowl D2 7.73 3 2 3 1 2 2 13 2 0 0
105 243 53 bowl D2 7.01 1 1 3 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
105 243 54 bowl D1 7.23 4 1 1 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
105 243 55 bowl D2 7.81 4 1 1 1 2 2 19 2 0 0
105 243 56 bowl D2 6.76 4 1 1 1 2 2 21 2 0 0
105 243 57 tinaja A1 22.12 3 4 3 2 2 3 47 1 0 0
551
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
105 243 58 tinaja A3 20.36 2 4 3 2 2 3 56 2 0 0
105 243 59 tinaja A1 26.94 3 3 3 1 2 3 55 1 0 0
105 243 60 tinaja A1 22.69 3 4 3 2 2 3 0 1 0 0
105 243 61 unknown 7.14 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 62 unknown 5.65 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 63 unknown 4.66 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 64 unknown 4.57 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 65 unknown 6.04 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 66 unknown 5.72 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 67 unknown 4.45 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 68 unknown 5.64 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 69 unknown 8.1 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 70 unknown 4.5 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 71 unknown 4.1 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
105 243 72 jar 11.53 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 73 unknown 3.6 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 74 unknown 3.3 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 75 unknown 6.52 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
105 243 76 unknown 7.2 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
108 342 1 olla D1 6.55 1 1 1 1 2 5 15 1 0 0
109 561 1 olla J 7.43 3 2 3 1 2 7 9 1 0 0
111 431 1 jar E1 6.05 3 1 3 1 2 2 12 2 0 0
111 431 2 tinaja B3 12.33 1 4 3 2 2 2 52 2 0 0
unknown
112 435 1 bowl 7.92 1 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
116 568 1 olla B2 6.01 2 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 23.6
116 568 2 olla E 4.89 2 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 20.69
116 568 3 olla E 7.06 2 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 25.64
116 568 4 olla C2 5.59 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 0
116 568 5 olla C1 7.19 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 28.54
116 568 6 bowl C 8.33 1 2 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
116 568 7 bowl C 8.83 1 2 1 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
116 568 8 bowl B 8.58 2 2 1 2 2 10 25 1 0 0
116 568 9 jar B 4.54 3 1 1 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
116 568 10 bowl B 5.84 4 2 1 1 2 10 18 1 0 0
116 568 11 bowl B 6.66 1 2 1 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
116 568 12 bowl B 6.05 1 2 3 1 2 10 30 1 0 0
116 568 13 unknown 6.58 3 2 3 2 2 5 14 1 0 0
116 568 14 unknown 6.64 2 2 3 2 2 5 21 2 0 0
116 568 15 olla G 7.53 2 3 3 2 2 3 22 9 0 0
116 568 16 unknown 7.33 2 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
116 568 17 tinaja A3 15.04 3 3 3 2 2 3 27 2 0 0
552
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
116 568 18 tinaja A2 13.73 1 4 3 2 2 3 32 4 0 0
116 568 19 tinaja A3 22.2 2 4 3 2 2 3 40 2 0 0
116 568 20 unknown 6.45 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
118 488 1 olla E 4.57 2 1 1 1 2 5 12 1 0 0
118 488 2 unknown 9.8 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
118 488 3 unknown 8.12 1 1 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0
119 494 1 bowl B 7.21 4 1 1 1 2 10 23 1 0 0
121 535 1 olla B1 7.16 3 2 1 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 18.95
121 535 2 olla B1 7.87 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 0
121 535 3 olla B2 8.64 4 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 20.58
121 535 4 olla B1 8.69 2 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 19.23
121 535 5 olla C1 7.01 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 21.78
121 535 6 olla C2 5.75 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
121 535 7 bowl B 8.47 1 2 1 2 2 10 14 1 0 0
121 535 8 bowl B 8.6 3 1 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
121 535 9 bowl C 6.01 2 2 3 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
121 535 10 bowl B 7.48 1 1 1 2 2 10 22 1 0 0
121 535 11 bowl B 6.69 1 2 1 2 2 10 24 1 0 0
121 535 12 bowl B 9.36 2 2 3 2 2 10 30 1 0 0
121 535 13 bowl D2 7.92 2 1 1 1 2 1 17 2 0 0
unknown
121 535 14 jar 10.48 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
121 535 15 rallador A 5.19 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
121 535 16 tinaja A1 13.75 3 4 3 2 2 3 27 1 0 0
122 537 1 olla C2 6.16 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
122 537 2 olla A 4.47 4 1 1 2 2 4 7 1 0 0
122 537 3 olla C2 6.73 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 25.82
122 537 4 unknown 5.71 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
122 537 5 unknown 3.61 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
122 537 6 unknown 4.75 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
125 548 1 olla G 10.68 3 2 3 1 2 3 22 3 0 0
125 548 2 unknown 5.11 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
128 516 1 olla B1 5.8 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 14.4
128 516 2 olla B1 7.64 2 1 1 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 17.7
128 516 3 olla B1 8.95 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 25.57
128 516 4 olla C1 7.1 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 24.07
128 516 5 olla C1 9.26 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 31.33
128 516 6 olla B2 7.49 1 1 3 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 22.28
128 516 7 olla C1 7.38 3 1 3 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 16.87
128 516 8 olla B1 6.66 4 2 1 1 2 4.1 7 1 0 17.35
128 516 9 unknown 7.14 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
128 516 10 tinaja A3 15.31 3 3 3 2 2 3 45 2 0 0
128 516 11 rallador D 7.18 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
553
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
128 516 12 unknown 4.05 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
128 516 13 tinaja A1 26.84 1 4 3 1 2 3 60 1 0 0
129 525 1 olla E 5.43 2 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 24.64
129 525 1 olla B2 7.15 3 2 3 2 2 4.1 10 1 0 20.94
129 525 2 olla B2 5.5 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 21.07
129 525 2 olla B2 8.91 3 1 3 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 21.68
129 525 3 olla A 9 3 1 1 1 2 4 13 1 0 20.36
129 525 3 olla C2 8.33 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 24.71
129 525 4 olla B1 10.18 1 2 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 21.18
129 525 4 olla B2 6.97 1 2 1 2 2 4.1 11 1 0 22.18
129 525 5 olla B1 7.53 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 21.98
129 525 5 olla C2 11.32 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 27.96
129 525 6 olla C1 9.76 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 26.83
129 525 6 olla C2 9.42 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 21.31
129 525 7 ola C1 8.2 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 23.49
129 525 7 olla C1 6.04 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 0
129 525 8 olla B2 8.65 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 13 1 0 18.95
129 525 8 olla B2 9.91 3 1 1 2 2 4.1 13 1 0 0
129 525 9 olla C2 9.82 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 26.36
129 525 9 olla E 5.21 2 1 1 2 2 5 13 1 0 24.15
129 525 10 olla B2 6.28 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 0
129 525 10 olla B1 9.31 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 13 1 0 24.16
129 525 11 olla C2 7.46 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 15 1 0 20.96
129 525 11 olla C2 8.25 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 22.97
129 525 12 olla C2 6.06 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 26.05
129 525 12 unknown 8.89 2 2 1 1 2 1 25 1 0 0
unknown
129 525 13 bowl 5.4 2 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
129 525 13 bowl 9.22 2 3 3 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
129 525 14 jar B 7.4 1 1 1 2 2 2 12 1 0 0
129 525 14 bowl B 7.29 3 2 1 2 2 10 27 1 0 0
129 525 15 jar E2 10.78 2 2 3 1 2 5 16 1 0 0
129 525 15 bowl D2 10.51 3 1 1 1 2 1 20 2 0 0
129 525 16 bowl B 6.59 2 1 1 1 2 10 18 1 0 0
129 525 16 bowl D1 8.4 4 1 1 1 2 2 30 2 0 0
129 525 17 jar B 6.55 4 1 1 1 2 2 19 1 0 0
129 525 17 jar B 9.88 1 2 3 1 2 2 30 2 0 0
129 525 18 bowl C 5.44 3 1 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
129 525 18 jar A 8.68 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 0 42.98
129 525 19 bowl B 8.36 3 2 1 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
129 525 19 bowl C 9.56 4 1 1 1 2 10 16 1 0 0
129 525 20 bowl B 7.71 2 2 3 1 2 10 28 1 0 0
554
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
129 525 20 tinaja A1 26.25 2 3 3 2 2 3 35 1 0 0
129 525 21 bowl C 7.43 2 1 1 1 2 10 30 1 0 0
129 525 21 tinaja A1 21.86 1 4 3 2 2 3 53 1 0 0
129 525 22 bowl B 8.89 2 1 3 1 2 10 30 1 0 0
129 525 22 tinaja A1 25.55 1 4 3 2 2 3 52 1 0 0
129 525 23 bowl D1 7.48 3 2 3 2 2 2 18 2 0 0
129 525 23 unknown 4.89 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
129 525 24 bowl 15.44 3 3 3 1 2 10 18 1 0 0
129 525 24 fineware 4.83 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 25 unknown 4.75 1 2 1 1 2 1 36 1 0 0
129 525 26 unknown 6.19 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 27 unknown 4.71 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 28 unknown 6.56 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 29 unknown 6.02 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 30 unknown 6.15 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 31 unknown 4.2 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 32 unknown 3.5 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 33 unknown 5.92 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 34 unknown 4.25 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 35 unknown 5.44 3 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 36 unknown 6.36 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 37 unknown 5 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 38 unknown 4.98 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 39 unknown 4.68 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
129 525 40 adorno 11.69 3 1 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
129 525 41 jar 8.62 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
130 532 1 olla A 5.54 1 2 1 1 2 4 10 1 0 0
130 532 2 olla B2 8.73 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 22.32
130 532 3 olla C1 7.9 3 1 3 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 25.62
130 532 4 unknown 10.47 2 1 1 1 9 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
130 532 5 bowl 9.18 1 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
130 532 6 tinaja A1 11.7 3 3 3 2 2 3 25 1 0 0
130 532 7 tinaja A1 18.73 1 4 3 2 2 3 38 1 0 0
131 576 1 olla E 4.48 1 2 3 2 2 5 10 1 0 20.59
131 576 2 olla C2 9.44 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 25.26
131 576 3 olla B2 6.32 1 1 3 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 20.23
131 576 4 olla C2 8.78 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 23.73
131 576 5 olla B1 6.9 3 1 3 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 18.11
131 576 6 olla B1 9.5 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 22.9
131 576 7 olla C1 8.52 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 30.83
555
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
131 576 8 olla C2 6.88 3 2 3 2 2 4.2 9 1 0 25.14
131 576 9 jar E2 8.99 2 2 3 1 2 5 18 1 0 49.65
131 576 10 olla F 7.45 3 1 1 2 2 2 19 1 0 15.04
131 576 11 jar A 7.21 3 1 1 1 2 2 10 1 0 0
131 576 12 unknown 6.96 2 1 1 2 2 2 11 1 0 0
131 576 13 bowl D1 8.53 4 1 1 1 2 2 18 2 0 0
131 576 14 bowl B 5.4 3 1 3 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
131 576 15 bowl B 8.05 3 2 3 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
131 576 16 unknown 10.63 3 2 3 2 2 1 19 1 0 0
131 576 17 bowl B 8.39 3 1 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
131 576 18 bowl B 8.26 1 1 1 1 2 10 23 1 0 0
131 576 19 bowl B 8.66 1 1 1 1 2 10 26 1 0 0
131 576 20 tinaja A2 11.81 3 3 3 1 2 3 19 2 0 0
131 576 21 tinaja A2 10.88 3 4 3 2 2 3 23 4 0 0
131 576 22 olla I 8.59 2 2 3 1 2 3 24 2 0 0
131 576 23 tinaja A1 27.37 1 4 3 2 2 3 0 1 0 0
131 576 24 tinaja A1 25.53 3 4 3 2 2 3 55 1 0 0
131 576 25 tinaja A1 24.47 3 4 3 2 2 3 52 1 0 0
131 576 26 tinaja A1 26.08 3 4 3 2 2 3 0 1 0 0
131 576 27 tinaja A3 25.8 3 4 3 2 3 3 0 2 0 0
131 576 28 unknown 5.75 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
131 576 29 unknown 6.95 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
131 576 30 unknown 7.82 3 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
131 579 1 unknown 6.95 3 2 3 2 2 3 11 1 0 0
unknown
131 579 2 bowl 8.96 1 2 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
131 579 3 tinaja A2 22.12 3 3 3 2 2 3 31 4 0 0
133 593 1 olla C1 6.43 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 31.86
133 593 2 olla B2 6.03 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 13 1 0 20.34
133 593 3 jar A 7.61 1 2 3 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
137 589 1 olla E 7 1 2 3 1 2 5 10 1 0 21.68
137 589 2 olla J 8.16 1 2 3 1 2 7 12 1 0 29.21
143 615 1 jar B 7.21 1 1 1 1 2 2 10 1 0 29.14
143 615 2 bowl B 7.48 2 1 3 2 2 10 15 1 0 0
143 615 3 bowl A 9.26 1 1 1 1 2 10 30 1 0 0
145 621 1 olla C1 8.6 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 0
145 621 2 bowl B 8.09 2 2 3 2 2 10 22 1 0 0
147 628 1 bowl B 6.75 4 1 1 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
148 630 1 bowl B 6.71 4 1 1 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
152 658 1 jar E 8.5 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 1 1 0
152 658 2 jar A 9.94 3 2 3 1 2 1 17 2 1 45.79
153 660 1 jar E2 8.23 2 1 3 2 2 5 25 1 0 0
153 660 2 jar A 14.2 3 1 3 2 2 1 30 2 0 32.4
556
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
154 663 1 jar E3 7.61 2 2 2 3 2 2 16 1 5 0
155 664 1 rallador A 6.45 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
156 666 1 jar E2 8.81 1 1 3 2 2 3 14 1 0 0
157 668 1 jar B 7.18 2 2 3 2 2 2 15 2 0 0
159 719 1 jar E3 7.98 2 1 3 2 2 2 18 1 5 0
unknown
159 719 2 bowl 6.12 3 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
159 719 3 unknown 4.74 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
159 719 4 unknown 6.27 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
159 719 5 fineware 3.56 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
160 724 1 jar A 7.56 2 2 3 2 2 1 11 1 0 0
160 724 2 unknown 8.97 2 2 3 2 2 1 27 1 0 0
162 730 1 jar E3 10.12 2 1 1 2 2 5 10 1 0 0
162 730 2 unknown 6.75 2 1 1 2 2 1 10 1 0 0
162 730 3 unknown 8.41 3 2 3 2 2 2 16 1 0 0
162 730 4 tinaja A3 14.08 2 3 3 2 2 3 27 2 0 0
164 795 1 jar A 11.1 2 2 3 2 2 1 20 1 0 0
164 795 2 jar E3 7.91 2 2 3 2 2 2 24 1 5 0
unknown
164 795 3 tinaja 13.36 3 2 3 1 2 1 42 2 0 0
164 795 4 tinaja B3 14.91 2 4 3 2 2 5 46 2 0 0
165 787 1 jar E 7.75 3 2 3 2 2 2 16 3 0 0
167 654 1 jar A 13.74 2 1 1 3 2 1 22 1 0 77.64
167 654 2 bowl C 7.51 2 2 3 2 2 10 32 1 0 0
168 655 1 olla J 6.74 3 1 1 1 2 7 8 1 0 25.81
168 655 2 olla C 8.68 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
168 655 3 jar B 6.24 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 1 0 0
168 655 4 jar A 8.57 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 1 0 26.93
168 655 5 olla E 7.61 2 1 1 1 2 5 13 1 0 26.73
169 656 1 bowl C 11.55 2 1 1 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
169 656 2 tinaja A3 13.18 2 4 3 2 2 3 51 1 0 0
171 684 1 olla C1 6.23 3 2 3 1 2 4.2 15 1 0 28.33
171 684 2 jar A 9.11 2 1 3 2 2 2 18 2 0 22.97
171 684 3 bowl C 8.12 1 2 1 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
171 684 4 bowl B 5.78 1 1 1 2 2 10 20 1 0 0
171 684 5 tinaja A3 17.88 3 4 3 2 2 3 46 2 0 0
172 688 1 olla D2 6.34 1 1 1 1 2 5 13 1 0 38.44
172 688 2 jar E2 6.72 1 1 3 1 2 5 15 2 0 0
174 672 1 jar E1 10.03 2 1 1 2 2 2 10 1 0 0
174 672 2 jar A 7.61 1 2 1 2 2 1 18 2 0 0
174 672 3 jar E3 6.27 3 2 3 2 2 2 26 1 0 0
174 672 4 olla J 9.29 1 1 1 1 2 7 9 1 0 0
174 672 5 olla J 9.41 3 1 1 2 2 7 11 1 0 28.71
557
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
174 672 6 bowl C 6.26 3 1 1 1 2 10 16 1 0 0
174 672 7 tinaja A3 13.69 2 1 1 2 2 3 31 2 0 0
174 672 8 jar E3 8.46 3 2 3 1 2 5 30 2 0 0
174 672 9 tinaja A4 11.91 3 3 3 2 2 3 30 3 0 0
174 672 10 tinaja A3 22.85 3 4 3 2 2 3 36 2 0 0
174 672 11 unknown 5.9 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
175 677 1 jar A 7.88 2 2 3 2 2 2 16 1 0 44.1
175 677 2 olla B2 9.61 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 14 1 0 29.53
175 677 3 olla D 6.78 3 2 3 1 2 5 12 1 0 27.89
175 677 4 unknown 5.26 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
175 677 5 unknown 4.83 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
175 677 6 unknown 3.58 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
175 677 7 unknown 5.11 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
177 731 1 jar E3 8.51 3 2 3 1 2 5 10 1 0 0
178 736 1 jar A 7.7 1 2 3 1 2 2 8 1 0 0
178 736 2 olla E 6.52 1 1 1 1 2 5 12 1 0 27.49
178 736 3 unknown 9.48 2 2 3 2 2 1 26 2 0 0
178 736 4 unknown 5.17 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
178 736 5 unknown 3.89 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
179 699 1 olla B1 5.89 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 23.76
179 699 2 jar E3 7.71 3 2 3 1 2 2 13 1 5 0
179 699 3 olla J 7 3 2 3 1 2 7 14 1 0 24.49
179 699 4 unknown 5.11 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
179 699 5 fineware 4.1 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
179 699 6 bowl C 7.55 1 1 1 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
179 699 7 bowl B 5.37 4 1 1 1 2 10 26 1 0 0
180 703 1 jar A 6.15 3 1 3 1 2 2 14 2 0 0
180 703 2 unknown 8.55 3 2 3 1 2 2 21 1 0 0
180 703 3 olla E 5.02 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 16.93
180 703 4 unknown 3.75 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
181 709 1 olla H1 3.31 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 0 13.54
181 709 2 olla B2 6.98 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 23.33
181 709 3 olla C1 5.23 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
181 709 4 olla E 6.43 2 1 1 1 2 5 12 1 0 24.29
181 709 5 bowl B 7.82 1 2 3 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
181 709 6 jar A 9.48 2 2 3 2 2 1 22 2 0 0
181 709 7 fineware 3.89 4 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
181 709 8 jar A 8.28 3 2 3 1 2 2 21 1 0 0
181 709 9 unknown 6.96 1 2 3 2 2 2 24 2 0 0
181 709 10 unknown 4.65 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
181 709 11 unknown 4.15 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
181 709 12 unknown 5.95 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
181 709 13 unknown 3.65 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
558
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
181 709 14 unknown 4.45 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
182 710 1 bowl C 5.32 1 1 1 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
182 710 2 bowl B 8.5 1 2 1 2 2 10 27 1 0 0
182 710 3 bowl C 8.77 2 1 2 1 2 10 31 1 0 0
182 710 4 bowl C 8 1 1 1 2 2 10 33 1 0 0
184 694 1 olla C2 10.4 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 20.15
184 694 2 olla C1 7.85 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 0
184 694 3 jar E3 8.44 2 2 3 2 2 2 0 1 0 0
184 694 4 jar B 4.81 1 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 0 0
184 694 5 olla C 5.77 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
184 694 6 unknown 4.88 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
184 694 7 unknown 7.26 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
184 694 8 tinaja A3 13.11 2 3 3 1 2 3 27 2 0 0
184 694 9 tinaja A3 25.56 1 4 3 2 2 3 50 2 0 0
185 774 1 olla B2 7.34 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 19.22
185 774 2 jar A 8.59 1 2 1 2 2 2 11 1 0 0
185 774 3 olla C1 7.8 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 0 1 0 24.1
185 774 4 tinaja A3 14.31 1 2 3 2 2 3 4 2 0 0
186 775 1 botella 5.15 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 9 1 0
186 775 2 jar A 3.41 3 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 0 0
186 775 3 unknown 6.52 1 2 3 1 2 5 13 1 0 0
186 775 4 unknown 4.87 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
186 775 5 unknown 4.3 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
186 775 6 unknown 6.71 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
187 776 1 olla E 6 1 2 3 2 2 5 10 1 0 20.92
187 776 2 olla E 8.31 2 1 1 2 2 2 9 1 0 0
187 776 3 olla C2 6 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 27.52
188 778 1 tinaja A1 17.97 3 3 3 1 2 3 26 1 0 0
189 777 1 olla C1 6.28 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 13 1 0 23.49
unknown
189 777 2 olla 5.32 1 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
189 777 3 unknown 5.1 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
189 777 4 unknown 9.47 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
197 744 1 olla B2 7.1 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 16.48
197 744 2 olla D2 7 1 1 3 1 2 5 9 1 0 0
197 744 3 bowl C 9 1 1 1 1 2 10 12 1 0 0
197 744 4 bowl C 6.45 4 1 1 1 2 10 12 1 0 0
197 744 5 jar B 5.8 4 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 0 0
197 744 6 unknown 6.62 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
197 744 7 unknown 3.69 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
199 753 1 jar B 5.51 1 1 1 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
200 798 1 olla E 6.96 1 1 3 1 2 5 15 1 0 28
200 798 2 olla C2 6.7 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 19 1 0 35.16
559
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
200 798 3 olla B2 6.65 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 16.81
200 798 4 olla C1 6.36 1 1 3 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
200 798 5 olla C1 5.85 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
200 798 6 olla C1 5.85 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
200 798 7 jar B 7.56 1 1 1 2 2 2 10 1 0 40.18
200 798 8 bowl C 6.94 1 2 3 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
200 798 9 jar B 6.66 1 2 3 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
200 798 10 tinaja A3 15 2 2 1 2 2 3 20 2 0 0
200 798 11 unknown 8.81 1 2 3 2 2 1 28 2 0 0
200 798 12 bowl C 8.31 1 2 1 1 2 10 32 1 0 0
200 798 13 bowl C 8.64 1 2 3 1 2 10 32 1 0 0
200 798 14 bowl C 8.83 1 2 3 2 2 10 25 1 0 0
200 798 15 tinaja A3 11.67 1 3 3 2 2 3 20 2 0 0
unknown
200 798 16 jar 9.05 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
200 798 17 unknown 2.93 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
200 798 18 unknown 5.55 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
200 798 19 unknown 6.11 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
200 798 20 unknown 4.42 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
200 798 21 unknown 5.48 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
200 798 22 unknown 6.15 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
203 823 1 jar E2 7.02 2 2 3 2 2 5 14 2 0 0
203 823 2 bowl C 7.92 1 2 3 2 2 10 17 2 0 0
203 823 3 bowl C 7.97 2 2 3 2 2 10 25 2 0 0
203 823 4 tinaja A3 14.56 2 3 3 2 2 3 0 2 0 0
203 932 1 jar A 9.17 2 2 3 2 2 2 16 1 1 0
203 932 2 jar A 7.75 1 2 3 1 2 2 21 1 0 0
203 932 3 unknown 9.92 3 2 3 1 2 1 23 2 0 0
203 932 4 unknown 10.42 3 2 3 2 2 3 23 2 0 0
204 827 1 olla C1 5.8 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 7 1 0 20.9
204 827 2 jar E2 6.66 3 2 3 1 2 3 9 1 0 0
204 827 3 bowl B 5.96 3 2 3 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
204 827 4 olla C2 6.38 3 1 3 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 26.36
204 827 5 tinaja A3 20 2 4 3 2 2 3 44 2 0 0
204 934 1 jar A 6.56 1 2 1 2 2 2 12 1 0 0
204 934 2 jar E2 7.81 4 2 3 2 2 3 16 3 0 0
unknown
204 934 3 jar 9.16 2 1 1 1 2 1 23 3 1 0
204 934 4 bowl B 8.7 1 2 3 2 2 10 25 1 0 0
205 869 1 unknown 7.2 1 1 1 1 2 10 9 2 0 0
205 869 2 jar A 9.7 2 2 3 1 2 1 12 1 0 0
205 869 3 jar E2 9.15 3 2 3 2 2 5 18 3 0 0
205 869 4 bowl B 8.85 3 1 3 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
560
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
205 869 5 bowl B 8.89 1 1 3 1 2 10 24 1 0 0
205 869 6 jar E2 10.03 3 2 3 2 2 5 31 2 0 0
205 869 7 bowl C 8.59 1 2 3 2 2 10 35 1 0 0
205 869 8 tinaja A3 14.83 1 4 3 2 2 3 40 2 0 0
205 869 9 unknown 13.79 4 1 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0
205 940 1 jar E2 5.88 1 2 3 1 2 5 11 1 5 51.56
205 940 2 olla G 5.38 1 1 3 1 2 3 14 2 0 0
206 875 1 bowl B 7.37 4 2 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
206 875 2 bowl C 4.8 1 1 1 2 2 2 17 1 0 0
206 875 3 bowl C 6.02 4 1 1 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
206 875 4 bowl C 6.42 2 1 1 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
206 875 5 bowl B 7.65 1 1 1 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
206 875 6 bowl B 8.88 1 2 3 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
206 875 7 tinaja A1 27.6 2 4 3 2 2 3 57 1 0 0
206 875 8 jar B 4.54 1 1 3 1 2 2 6 1 0 0
206 875 9 unknown 4.1 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
206 944 1 jar A 5.23 3 1 1 1 2 1 11 1 0 0
206 944 1 bowl C 7.81 2 1 1 2 2 10 12 1 0 0
206 944 2 jar A 8.89 3 2 3 1 2 1 16 1 0 0
206 944 3 olla C1 8.78 1 1 3 2 2 4.1 17 1 0 0
206 944 4 bowl C 8.47 1 2 3 1 2 10 18 1 0 0
206 944 5 jar E2 8.47 3 2 3 2 2 1 21 2 0 0
207 886 1 olla C2 7.3 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 17 1 0 27.73
207 886 2 jar E1 10.22 3 2 3 1 2 2 17 1 0 0
207 886 3 unknown 7.95 1 2 3 2 1 3 27 1 0 0
207 886 4 tinaja A3 10.47 1 2 1 2 2 3 47 2 0 0
unknown
207 886 5 jar 8.44 1 1 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
207 886 6 unknown 5.81 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
207 952 1 unknown 6.41 1 1 2 1 2 1 14 1 0 0
207 952 2 bowl B1 5.97 3 2 3 2 2 2 15 1 0 0
207 952 3 bowl C 7.04 3 2 3 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
207 952 4 tinaja A3 8.79 1 2 3 2 2 3 24 2 0 0
207 952 5 tinaja A 11.91 2 2 3 2 2 3 38 1 0 0
208 959 1 unknown 7.78 1 3 3 2 2 3 11 1 0 0
208 959 2 jar E1 8.5 1 3 3 2 2 2 28 2 0 0
208 999 1 bowl B 8.56 1 2 3 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
208 999 2 bowl B 5.52 1 1 3 2 2 10 22 1 0 0
208 999 3 unknown 8.9 3 3 3 2 2 1 22 2 0 0
208 999 4 olla C2 6.1 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 13 2 0 29.36
209 1006 1 bowl B 8.37 1 2 3 2 2 10 17 1 0 0
209 1006 2 tinaja A 13.67 2 3 3 2 2 3 22 1 0 0
209 1006 3 bowl A 7.2 2 1 3 1 2 10 24 1 0 0
561
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
209 1006 4 tinaja A 13.09 3 1 3 2 2 3 26 1 0 0
209 1006 5 rallador C 9.42 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
210 1014 1 jar B 5.23 4 1 1 1 2 2 5 1 0 0
210 1014 2 olla C2 6.12 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 20 1 0 28.68
210 1014 3 bowl B 7.18 1 2 3 2 2 10 30 1 0 0
210 1014 4 tinaja A3 24.93 1 4 3 2 2 3 41 2 0 0
unknown
210 1014 5 tinaja 11.77 1 3 3 1 2 5 44 2 0 0
210 1014 6 unknown 5.4 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
211 1052 1 jar A 6.8 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 1 0 0
211 1052 2 jar A 8.5 2 2 3 1 2 1 11 1 0 57.24
211 1052 3 bowl B 5.86 1 2 3 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
211 1052 4 unknown 8.87 3 1 9 2 2 5 21 9 0 0
212 856 1 jar E3 7.9 2 2 3 2 2 2 17 1 0 0
212 856 2 bowl B 7.24 1 2 3 2 2 10 21 4 0 0
212 856 3 jar E2 6.92 2 2 3 2 2 5 16 1 0 0
212 856 4 jar E1 7.24 2 2 3 2 2 2 14 2 0 0
212 856 5 adorno 13.92 4 1 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0
212 856 6 unknown 6.42 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
212 856 7 unknown 7 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
212 923 1 unknown 4.33 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
212 923 2 unknown 4.07 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
213 859 1 olla E 5.7 2 1 1 1 2 5 8 1 0 0
213 859 2 olla J 6.2 1 1 1 1 2 7 10 1 0 0
213 859 3 olla E 5.94 3 1 1 1 2 5 11 1 0 0
213 859 4 olla J 6.89 2 2 1 2 2 7 21 1 0 0
213 859 5 unknown 5.77 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
213 859 6 jar 9.2 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
213 859 7 jar A 7.05 1 2 3 2 2 1 11 1 0 0
213 859 8 olla G 10.8 3 2 3 2 2 3 14 2 0 0
213 859 9 jar E1 7.41 3 3 3 2 2 3 16 1 0 0
213 859 10 bowl B 6.49 1 2 1 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
213 859 11 bowl B 6.62 2 2 1 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
213 859 12 bowl B 7 3 2 3 2 2 10 22 1 0 0
213 859 13 bowl B 8.12 2 2 1 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
unknown
213 859 14 jar 14.52 2 2 1 2 2 5 41 3 0 0
214 862 1 olla C2 4.86 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 9 1 0 14.65
214 862 2 unknown 5.86 2 1 1 2 2 2 16 1 0 0
214 862 3 jar A 9.38 2 2 3 2 2 1 27 2 0 0
215 863 1 tinaja A3 13.6 3 2 3 1 2 3 34 2 0 0
217 1028 1 unknown 8.55 2 3 3 2 2 2 24 1 0 0
562
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
218 1031 1 unknown 9.92 1 3 3 1 2 1 14 1 0 0
unknown
218 1031 2 jar 8.57 3 2 3 2 2 1 20 2 0 0
218 1031 3 bowl B 6.98 1 2 1 2 2 10 26 1 0 0
218 1031 4 olla E 7.76 1 2 3 2 2 5 10 1 0 0
218 1031 5 jar E 13.11 3 4 3 2 2 3 33 3 0 0
218 1031 6 jar E 8.92 3 4 3 2 2 3 36 3 0 0
218 1031 7 unknown 5.88 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
219 1036 1 bowl B 9.95 1 1 1 2 2 10 24 1 0 0
220 1038 1 tinaja A3 13.12 3 3 3 2 2 3 22 2 0 0
220 1038 2 jar E3 8.37 1 2 3 1 2 2 19 1 0 0
220 1038 3 unknown 4.82 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
220 1042 1 bowl C 6 1 1 1 1 2 10 13 1 0 0
222 1090 1 jar A 9.15 1 3 3 2 2 2 18 2 0 27.5
223 1095 1 tinaja A3 15.72 2 4 3 1 2 3 50 2 0 0
223 1095 2 fineware 5.46 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
229 832 1 olla C 6.64 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 11.73
229 832 2 jar A 7.45 3 1 3 2 2 5 13 3 0 0
229 832 3 jar A 9.59 2 2 3 2 2 2 31 1 0 0
230 836 1 jar E3 7.98 1 3 3 1 2 2 12 1 5 0
230 836 2 olla G 5.21 1 1 1 1 2 3 14 1 0 0
230 836 3 unknown 10.79 3 4 3 2 2 1 34 1 0 0
230 836 4 unknown 3.5 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
230 836 5 unknown 5.36 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
230 836 6 unknown 4.54 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
230 836 7 unknown 5.13 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
231 840 1 olla J 6.66 3 1 3 1 2 7 12 1 0 39.02
231 840 2 bowl B 6.14 1 2 3 2 2 10 24 1 0 0
231 840 3 jar E 9.81 2 2 3 2 2 5 24 2 0 0
232 844 1 olla J 6.45 4 2 1 1 2 7 13 1 0 0
unknown
232 844 2 jar 10.6 1 2 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
232 844 3 unknown 4.98 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
232 844 4 unknown 4.21 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
232 844 5 unknown 4.59 1 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
233 845 1 olla C1 5.44 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 13 1 0 22.96
234 889 1 bowl C 4.93 4 2 1 1 2 1 16 1 0 0
236 897 1 olla J 6.52 1 2 3 2 2 7 12 1 0 0
236 897 2 bowl C 7.31 4 1 1 1 2 10 12 1 0 0
237 907 1 jar A 9.64 3 3 3 2 2 1 18 1 0 0
238 905 1 olla C2 6.92 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 23.4
238 905 2 jar E2 8.92 3 3 3 2 2 1 13 1 0 0
238 905 3 bowl C 6.98 1 2 1 1 2 10 17 1 0 0
563
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
239 916 1 olla C2 7.69 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 35.45
unknown
239 917 1 jar 13.59 1 3 3 2 2 2 37 3 0 0
239 917 2 olla C2 6.06 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 22.87
239 917 3 otro 8.87 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
241 962 1 jar E 9.66 2 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
242 968 1 tinaja A1 18.13 2 4 3 2 2 3 56 1 0 0
242 968 2 jar A 9.1 2 2 3 2 2 1 22 1 0 0
242 968 3 unknown 5.57 2 2 3 2 2 1 16 1 0 0
242 968 4 bowl B 9.87 1 2 3 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
242 968 5 unknown 6.92 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
242 968 6 unknown 4.25 3 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
242 968 7 unknown 5.15 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
244 977 1 bowl B 7.14 4 1 1 1 2 10 17 1 0 0
244 977 2 jar A 10.86 3 3 3 1 2 2 17 1 0 0
244 977 3 unknown 4.54 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
245 981 1 jar A 7.26 3 1 3 1 2 2 16 1 0 29.26
245 981 2 jar A 12.08 2 2 3 2 2 2 20 1 0 34.14
246 985 1 olla C1 9.05 2 2 3 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 29.31
249 900 1 jar B 6.53 2 3 3 2 2 2 12 1 0 0
249 900 2 jar A 11.3 2 2 3 2 2 2 18 1 0 0
257 1113 1 tinaja B3 10.9 3 3 3 1 2 1 35 2 0 0
258 1117 1 olla D3 6.3 1 2 3 1 2 5 14 1 0 29.44
unknown
258 1117 2 olla 4.07 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
260 1126 1 unknown 5.46 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
260 1126 2 unknown 5.34 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
260 1126 3 unknown 4.69 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
263 1172 1 unknown 5.38 3 1 1 1 2 1 11 1 0 0
263 1172 2 jar A 8.93 2 2 3 2 2 1 11 1 0 0
263 1172 3 olla C2 8.22 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 15 1 0 33.72
263 1172 4 bowl C 8.19 1 1 1 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
263 1172 5 unknown 4.7 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
266 1210 1 tinaja 17.61 3 3 3 2 2 3 47 3 0 0
271 1083 1 olla D1 7.91 1 2 1 1 2 5 13 1 0 0
271 1083 2 bowl C 7.47 2 1 3 1 2 10 19 2 0 0
271 1083 3 unknown 3.6 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
272 1129 1 jar A 7.67 2 2 1 2 2 2 13 3 0 48.55
272 1129 2 jar B 9.02 1 1 1 2 2 2 14 1 0 0
273 1133 1 bowl C 9.94 2 2 3 2 2 10 22 1 0 0
275 1138 1 olla D2 8.33 1 1 1 1 2 5 14 1 0 36.9
275 1138 2 jar E2 11.48 3 2 3 2 2 5 30 1 0 0
564
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
275 1294 1 unknown 14.13 3 2 3 1 2 1 20 1 0 0
unknown
275 1294 2 jar 10.6 2 2 3 1 2 2 33 1 0 0
276 1143 1 olla D2 8.31 1 1 1 2 2 5 11 1 0 0
276 1143 2 unknown 5.98 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
278 1153 1 jar F 7.8 1 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
278 1153 2 olla E 6.14 3 1 1 2 2 5 12 1 0 32.68
278 1153 3 jar E2 9.12 2 2 3 2 2 5 19 1 0 0
278 1153 4 jar E2 11.31 2 2 3 2 2 5 28 1 0 0
278 1153 5 unknown 6.83 3 2 3 2 2 5 42 1 0 0
unknown
278 1153 6 tinaja 7.51 3 3 3 2 2 3 43 3 0 0
278 1153 7 jar A 9.6 1 3 3 1 2 1 21 2 0 0
278 1153 8 jar A 10.44 2 2 3 2 2 2 24 2 0 0
278 1153 9 jar E2 7.4 2 2 3 1 2 5 25 2 0 0
281 1197 1 jar A 6.94 3 2 3 2 2 2 11 2 0 0
281 1197 2 jar E2 11.07 2 2 3 2 2 3 13 3 0 0
281 1197 3 jar A 10.97 1 2 3 1 2 2 22 1 0 0
282 1203 1 olla E 4.98 3 2 3 2 2 5 15 1 0 0
282 1203 2 unknown 6.51 1 2 3 2 2 1 20 2 0 0
283 1298 1 jar A 5.8 3 2 3 2 2 1 12 1 0 0
285 1059 1 bowl C 6.38 2 1 1 1 2 10 16 2 0 0
285 1059 2 unknown 10.37 1 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
285 1059 3 unknown 5.86 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
286 1207 1 jar E 6.16 3 2 3 2 2 5 20 1 0 0
289 1224 1 other 4.26 1 1 1 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
290 1228 1 olla C1 6.81 3 2 1 2 2 4.2 14 9 0 0
290 1228 2 jar E3 6.62 3 1 1 1 2 2 17 1 0 0
unknown
290 1228 3 jar 7.89 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
290 1228 4 unknown 3.85 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
291 1229 1 olla C2 7.43 1 2 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 27.76
291 1229 2 unknown 4.02 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
295 1260 1 jar A 7.52 3 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
295 1260 2 jar B 6.24 3 1 3 2 2 2 13 1 0 0
295 1260 3 jar A 8.08 3 2 3 2 2 1 14 1 0 0
295 1260 4 unknown 9.3 3 2 3 2 2 1 14 1 0 0
295 1260 5 jar A 9.43 3 2 3 2 2 2 15 2 0 0
295 1260 6 tinaja B4 12.05 3 3 3 2 2 1 25 3 0 0
296 1261 1 olla A 6.15 3 1 1 1 2 4 11 1 0 0
296 1261 2 tinaja A3 12.63 3 3 3 2 2 3 60 2 0 0
298 1269 1 olla C2 6.52 2 2 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 24.3
298 1269 2 tinaja B3 12.14 2 2 3 1 2 1 52 2 0 0
565
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
299 1273 1 olla C2 6.1 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 29.78
305 1317 1 jar E2 7.24 1 1 3 2 2 5 15 1 0 0
unknown
306 1321 1 jar 5.65 1 1 1 1 2 1 20 2 0 0
311 1237 1 jar E2 8.52 3 1 3 2 2 5 10 1 0 0
311 1237 2 jar E2 8.77 1 2 3 2 2 3 12 3 0 0
311 1237 3 jar E2 7.59 2 2 3 2 2 5 14 1 0 0
311 1237 4 jar E2 9.75 3 2 3 2 2 5 17 1 0 0
311 1237 5 jar A 10.64 3 2 3 2 2 2 19 2 0 22.04
unknown
311 1237 6 jar 9.93 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
317 1253 1 jar B 7.42 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 1 0 0
317 1253 2 jar A 6.98 2 1 3 2 2 1 8 1 0 0
317 1253 3 olla E 7.86 1 1 3 1 2 5 12 1 0 0
317 1253 4 jar E1 7.42 1 3 3 1 2 2 11 1 0 0
317 1253 5 jar A 9.88 2 2 3 2 2 1 14 1 0 0
317 1253 6 jar A 8.96 2 2 3 1 2 2 15 1 0 20.21
317 1253 7 jar A 9.6 2 1 1 2 2 1 16 1 0 0
317 1253 8 jar E3 9.6 3 3 3 2 2 2 13 1 0 0
317 1253 9 unknown 9.29 2 1 1 2 2 5 20 3 0 0
317 1253 10 unknown 10.07 3 2 1 1 2 10 19 2 0 0
317 1253 11 tinaja A3 11.84 3 2 1 1 2 3 26 2 0 0
317 1253 12 tinaja A3 11.29 3 1 1 2 2 3 30 2 0 0
317 1253 13 tinaja A3 11.6 3 1 1 1 2 3 30 2 0 0
317 1253 14 tinaja B3 12.25 2 2 3 2 2 3 48 2 0 0
317 1253 15 unknown 11.48 2 2 3 2 2 1 26 1 0 0
317 1253 16 jar E3 9.86 2 2 3 2 2 2 30 3 0 0
318 1254 1 jar A 6.18 1 1 3 2 2 1 8 1 0 0
318 1254 2 jar A 6.61 4 1 3 1 2 1 8 1 0 0
318 1254 3 jar A 7.94 1 1 3 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
unknown
318 1254 4 jar 10.2 3 1 3 2 2 2 16 2 0 0
318 1254 5 bowl C 6.43 2 1 3 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
318 1254 6 jar E2 7.85 2 1 3 2 2 5 19 1 0 0
318 1254 7 tinaja A2 12.21 1 3 3 2 2 3 28 2 0 0
unknown
318 1254 8 tinaja 11.55 3 3 3 2 2 9 46 2 0 0
unknown
318 1254 9 tinaja 15.57 3 3 3 2 2 9 60 2 0 0
318 1254 10 tinaja A4 13.44 3 4 3 2 2 3 24 3 0 0
318 1254 11 tinaja A4 14.15 2 3 3 2 2 3 44 3 0 0
unknown
318 1254 12 jar 9.28 2 2 3 2 2 1 26 1 0 0
566
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
318 1332 1 jar E3 7.7 2 3 3 2 2 2 14 2 0 0
318 1332 2 jar A 8.84 3 2 1 2 2 1 25 2 0 0
318 1332 3 tinaja A3 9.1 3 3 3 2 2 3 36 2 0 0
319 1331 1 jar A 8.48 3 2 3 2 2 1 9 1 0 0
319 1331 2 jar A 7.88 1 2 3 1 2 2 13 2 0 0
319 1331 3 jar E3 9.19 3 2 3 2 2 2 15 1 0 0
322 1338 1 jar A 9.3 3 1 1 2 2 2 16 1 0 0
322 1338 2 jar E2 7.92 3 2 3 1 2 3 24 3 0 0
323 1342 1 tinaja A3 12.32 3 3 3 1 2 3 47 2 0 0
323 1342 2 tinaja A2 14.12 3 3 3 2 2 3 28 4 0 0
323 1342 3 jar A 6.64 1 3 3 2 2 2 14 1 0 0
328 1419 1 jar B 5.49 3 1 1 2 2 2 10 0 0 0
328 1419 1 unknown 6.02 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 2 bowl C 7.51 3 2 3 1 2 10 13 2 0 0
328 1419 2 botella 3.81 4 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 0
328 1419 3 unknown 6.97 3 2 3 1 2 5 14 1 0 0
328 1419 3 olla G2 5.06 4 1 1 1 2 3 9 2 0 0
328 1419 4 tinaja B3 10.5 1 3 3 2 2 3 37 1 0 0
328 1419 4 fineware 3.65 4 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 5 jar C 6.09 4 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 0 0
328 1419 5 olla G1 5.2 4 1 1 2 2 3 9 1 0 0
328 1419 6 olla D2 5.4 3 1 3 1 2 5 11 1 0 0
328 1419 6 olla G1 4.37 4 1 1 2 2 3 9 1 0 0
328 1419 7 olla C2 8.54 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 18 1 0 24.7
328 1419 7 olla G 3.31 4 1 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 8 fineware 2.72 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 8 olla G 4.38 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 9 jar A 7.04 3 2 3 1 2 1 20 2 0 0
328 1419 9 unknown 5.9 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 10 unknown 6.84 3 1 1 1 2 1 31 2 0 0
328 1419 10 unknown 3.87 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 11 unknown 3.9 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 12 fineware 3.3 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 13 fineware 4.34 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 14 rallador C 5 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
328 1419 15 tinaja A1 20.17 3 4 3 2 1 3 55 1 0 0
328 1419 16 tinaja A3 11.95 2 3 3 2 1 3 35 2 0 0
328 1419 17 jar E1 13.86 2 3 3 2 1 2 16 2 0 0
328 1419 18 tinaja C 18.76 2 4 3 2 1 3 51 1 0 0
328 1419 19 olla E 4.79 4 1 1 1 2 5 8 1 0 25.79
328 1419 20 olla B1 8.08 2 1 3 2 2 4.1 8 1 0 16.88
328 1419 21 olla B2 7.11 1 1 3 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 16.81
328 1419 22 olla D3 5.8 3 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 31.66
567
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
328 1419 23 olla D2 7.4 2 1 1 2 2 5 11 1 0 30.24
328 1419 24 jar B 5.34 4 1 1 1 2 2 8 1 0 50.93
328 1419 25 jar A 11.44 3 2 3 2 2 2 12 2 0 48.21
328 1419 26 jar A 8.78 1 1 3 1 2 2 15 3 0 57.2
328 1419 27 jar E2 8.41 2 2 3 1 2 5 19 3 0 0
328 1419 28 jar E2 8.92 3 1 3 2 2 5 23 1 0 0
328 1419 29 jar E2 7.61 1 1 3 1 2 5 25 1 0 0
328 1419 30 jar E2 8.98 1 2 3 2 2 5 13 1 0 0
328 1419 31 jar E2 6.46 1 2 3 1 2 5 17 3 0 0
328 1419 32 jar E2 9.31 3 2 3 2 2 5 17 1 0 83.1
328 1419 33 bowl B 8.12 1 2 3 2 2 10 23 1 0 0
328 1419 34 bowl B 9.13 3 1 3 1 2 10 24 1 0 0
328 1419 35 bowl C 7.52 1 1 1 1 2 10 14 1 0 0
328 1419 36 bowl C 6.85 1 1 3 1 2 1 15 1 0 0
328 1419 37 jar E3 7.69 3 2 3 1 2 2 18 1 0 0
328 1419 38 jar E3 8.6 2 2 3 2 2 2 19 2 0 0
328 1419 39 jar E3 7 3 1 3 2 2 2 20 1 0 0
unknown
328 1419 40 jar 8.19 2 1 1 1 2 2 13 1 0 0
328 1419 41 jar E3 7.14 2 2 3 1 2 2 13 1 5 0
328 1419 42 jar E3 8.79 2 2 3 2 2 2 15 1 0 0
328 1419 43 jar A 5.49 1 1 3 1 2 1 21 1 0 0
unknown
328 1419 44 bowl 10.61 2 2 3 1 2 2 22 2 0 0
328 1419 45 jar B 6.68 3 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
328 1419 46 bowl C 7.61 1 2 3 2 2 1 18 1 0 0
328 1419 47 jar A 8.94 1 1 3 2 2 1 6 1 0 0
328 1419 48 jar A 8.21 2 2 3 1 2 1 8 1 0 0
328 1419 49 jar B 7.71 2 2 3 2 2 2 11 1 0 0
328 1419 50 jar A 7.63 1 2 3 2 2 2 11 1 0 0
328 1419 51 fineware 4.83 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
329 1430 1 jar A 8.02 3 2 1 2 2 2 13 1 0 0
332 1479 1 olla G 6.53 3 1 1 1 2 5 12 1 0 0
unknown
333 1493 1 jar 9.77 2 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
334 1491 1 jar E 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 10 1 1 0
334 1491 2 jar E3 5.71 3 2 3 1 2 2 10 1 5 0
334 1491 3 olla E 5.43 1 1 1 2 2 5 12 1 0 0
334 1491 4 jar E1 8.66 2 1 3 1 2 2 13 2 0 0
334 1491 5 olla C1 7.47 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 30.22
unknown
334 1491 6 bowl 7.6 2 1 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
335 1496 1 jar E 7.14 2 1 1 2 1 2 16 2 0 0
568
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
336 1504 1 olla J 5.41 3 2 3 1 2 7 7 1 0 38.57
336 1504 2 olla C2 5.48 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 26.49
336 1504 3 bowl C 5.46 1 1 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
336 1504 4 jar E1 8.37 1 2 1 1 2 2 18 1 0 0
336 1504 5 jar E 10 3 2 3 2 2 3 19 1 0 0
unknown
336 1504 6 bowl 5.95 1 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
338 1554 1 bowl C 6.63 1 1 1 2 2 10 20 2 0 0
338 1554 2 bowl C 7.52 1 1 1 2 2 10 30 2 0 0
342 1569 1 jar E3 9.68 1 2 3 1 2 2 16 1 5 46.58
343 1365 1 jar E1 11.32 1 2 3 2 2 2 16 3 0 0
344 1372 1 jar E2 7.76 1 2 3 1 2 3 11 1 0 0
344 1372 2 jar E2 10.47 2 2 3 1 2 3 13 1 0 0
344 1372 3 jar A 8.05 1 2 3 1 2 2 13 2 0 0
344 1372 4 jar E2 7.73 1 1 3 2 2 3 14 1 0 0
344 1372 5 tinaja B4 10.63 1 2 3 2 2 1 21 3 0 0
unknown
344 1372 6 tinaja 17.01 1 3 3 2 2 3 57 2 0 0
345 1374 1 jar E2 8.49 2 2 3 1 2 3 12 1 0 0
345 1374 2 jar A 8.83 2 2 3 2 2 2 14 1 0 0
346 1378 1 olla K 8.81 2 3 3 1 2 1 11 1 0 0
347 1379 1 jar A 4.89 3 1 1 1 2 1 9 1 0 0
347 1379 2 jar A 4.44 2 1 1 1 2 1 9 1 0 0
347 1379 3 olla G 8.74 2 3 3 1 2 3 12 3 0 0
347 1379 4 olla G 8.57 3 2 3 2 2 3 13 2 0 0
347 1379 5 jar E2 10.39 1 1 1 1 2 5 14 1 0 0
347 1379 6 jar E1 6.8 1 3 3 2 2 1 14 2 0 0
348 1386 1 olla G 8.21 3 1 3 1 2 3 11 1 0 0
348 1386 2 jar B 10.52 2 2 3 2 2 3 13 1 1 28.59
348 1386 3 jar E2 7.14 3 1 3 2 2 5 16 3 0 0
350 1390 1 olla K 7.76 2 1 1 1 2 3 14 1 0 0
350 1390 2 tinaja A4 11.94 3 2 3 1 2 3 32 3 0 0
351 1396 1 olla G 7.4 2 2 1 2 2 3 18 3 0 0
351 1396 2 tinaja A3 12.15 1 2 3 2 2 3 28 2 0 0
351 1396 3 tinaja A3 8.92 1 2 3 2 2 3 41 2 0 0
351 1396 4 jar A 8.52 3 2 3 1 2 2 13 1 0 0
351 1396 5 jar A 8.74 3 2 3 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
351 1396 6 jar E2 9.55 3 1 3 1 2 5 16 3 0 0
351 1396 7 jar F 5.18 3 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
353 1451 1 unknown 10.26 2 1 1 2 2 1 21 2 0 0
353 1451 2 tinaja A3 10.7 3 2 3 2 2 3 30 3 0 0
355 1452 1 jar A 7.82 3 2 3 2 2 2 10 1 0 0
355 1452 2 jar A 9.85 1 2 3 2 2 2 12 2 0 0
569
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
355 1452 3 jar A 8.18 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
355 1452 4 jar A 8.05 3 1 3 2 2 2 13 3 0 60.62
355 1452 5 jar A 7.9 3 2 3 2 2 2 15 1 0 0
355 1452 6 jar A 10.41 3 1 3 1 2 2 16 1 0 54.78
355 1452 7 jar A 10.63 3 2 3 2 2 2 21 1 0 0
unknown
355 1452 8 tinaja 11.6 2 3 3 2 2 3 56 3 0 0
355 1452 9 unknown 10.44 2 1 3 2 2 2 19 2 0 0
355 1452 10 jar E2 7.49 3 2 3 1 2 5 19 1 0 0
355 1452 11 jar E2 8.47 3 2 3 1 2 5 20 3 0 0
355 1452 12 jar E2 6.37 3 2 3 1 2 5 17 1 0 0
355 1452 13 jar E1 9.67 3 2 3 1 2 2 17 1 0 0
355 1452 14 jar E2 7.15 3 1 3 1 2 5 18 1 0 0
355 1452 15 unknown 11.04 3 3 3 1 2 2 18 2 0 0
355 1452 16 jar F 9.96 1 3 3 2 9 0 0 0 0 0
358 1403 1 jar A 7.68 1 2 3 2 2 1 9 1 8 0
358 1403 2 jar A 5.71 2 2 3 1 2 2 9 1 0 0
358 1403 3 jar E2 7.3 3 3 3 1 2 5 11 1 0 0
358 1403 4 jar E3 9.05 2 2 3 2 2 1 12 2 5 39.79
358 1403 5 jar A 9.09 1 1 1 2 2 1 12 1 8 0
358 1403 6 olla K 8.12 3 3 3 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
358 1403 7 bowl C 6 3 1 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
358 1403 8 fineware 5.42 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
359 1404 1 jar E1 7.78 2 2 3 2 2 2 21 1 5 0
359 1404 2 jar E2 10.85 3 1 3 2 2 3 25 1 0 0
359 1404 3 tinaja A3 13.38 1 3 3 2 2 3 26 2 0 0
359 1404 4 unknown 10.4 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
359 1404 5 tinaja A3 12.8 1 2 3 2 2 3 24 2 0 0
359 1404 6 tinaja A3 15.48 1 3 3 2 2 3 57 2 0 0
unknown
359 1404 7 jar 6.66 2 1 3 2 2 2 13 1 0 0
unknown
359 1404 8 jar 8.06 1 2 3 1 2 5 15 1 0 0
361 1410 1 jar E1 8.72 1 2 3 2 2 2 17 3 5 0
361 1410 2 jar A 8.95 3 2 3 2 2 2 18 3 1 31.37
361 1410 3 tinaja A4 13.46 3 2 3 2 2 3 29 3 0 0
361 1410 4 tinaja A4 10.87 1 3 3 2 2 3 38 3 0 0
361 1410 5 jar B 7.82 2 2 3 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
361 1410 6 jar A 8.11 3 1 3 2 2 2 14 1 2 0
361 1410 7 jar E2 8.45 3 2 3 1 2 3 14 1 1 0
361 1410 8 jar E2 7.28 3 1 1 1 2 3 14 3 0 0
361 1410 9 tinaja A4 8.91 1 2 3 2 2 3 20 3 0 0
361 1410 10 tinaja A3 9.23 2 2 3 2 2 2 23 2 0 0
570
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
361 1410 11 unknown 8.95 2 2 3 2 2 1 24 2 0 0
361 1410 12 tinaja B1 15.12 3 2 3 1 2 1 38 1 0 0
unknown
361 1410 13 tinaja 16.75 1 3 3 2 2 10 44 1 0 0
361 1412 1 olla G 8.66 3 2 1 2 2 3 14 3 0 0
361 1412 2 olla G 10.52 2 2 3 2 2 3 14 1 0 0
361 1412 3 jar E2 10.15 3 2 3 1 2 5 17 2 0 0
361 1412 4 jar A 9.54 2 2 3 2 2 1 12 1 0 0
361 1412 5 jar E3 6.85 1 2 3 2 2 6 17 1 5 0
361 1412 6 jar A 9.74 1 2 3 2 2 1 17 1 0 0
361 1412 7 jar E2 11.41 3 2 3 2 2 5 20 1 0 0
361 1412 8 jar F 5.76 2 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
361 1412 9 tinaja A1 20.92 1 3 3 2 2 3 49 1 0 0
361 1412 10 tinaja B2 16.23 1 3 3 2 2 1 40 2 0 0
361 1412 11 tinaja A4 12.66 3 2 3 1 2 3 32 3 0 0
361 1412 12 tinaja A4 12.27 2 3 3 2 2 3 34 3 0 0
362 1461 1 jar A 7.58 2 1 3 2 2 2 8 1 0 0
362 1461 2 jar A 8.67 3 2 1 2 2 2 9 1 0 0
362 1461 3 jar A 7.49 2 1 1 2 2 2 10 1 0 0
362 1461 4 jar A 8.53 2 2 3 2 2 1 12 1 0 0
362 1461 5 jar E1 6.57 2 1 1 2 2 2 12 2 0 0
362 1461 6 unknown 7.63 1 1 1 2 2 10 13 2 0 0
362 1461 7 jar A 14.88 3 3 3 2 2 1 15 3 0 0
362 1461 8 jar A 14.16 3 3 3 2 2 1 19 1 0 0
362 1461 9 jar E1 6.99 2 3 3 2 2 2 11 1 0 0
362 1461 10 jar E1 8.7 3 3 3 2 2 2 13 2 0 0
362 1461 11 jar E2 7.94 1 2 3 2 2 3 16 1 0 0
362 1461 12 jar E2 8.52 1 2 3 2 2 3 17 1 0 0
362 1461 13 jar E2 10.31 1 3 3 1 2 5 19 1 0 75.42
362 1461 14 jar E2 8 2 2 1 2 2 5 23 2 0 0
362 1461 15 jar A 6.63 3 3 3 2 2 2 20 2 0 70.81
362 1461 16 jar E1 6.71 2 2 3 2 2 1 15 1 0 0
362 1461 17 jar E1 8.69 2 3 3 2 2 2 22 1 0 0
unknown
362 1461 18 tinaja 11.32 3 4 3 2 2 3 25 2 0 0
unknown
362 1461 19 tinaja 9.02 3 4 3 2 2 3 34 3 0 0
unknown
362 1461 20 jar 8.94 2 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
362 1461 21 jar 7.56 1 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
362 1461 22 jar 5.3 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
571
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
unknown
362 1461 23 jar 9.17 2 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
362 1461 24 jar 8.65 2 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0
363 1472 1 jar E2 8.2 1 2 1 2 14 2 0 0 0 0
363 1472 2 jar A 7.45 3 1 1 2 12 1 0 0 0 0
363 1472 3 Jar B 7.29 3 2 3 2 15 2 0 0 0 0
363 1472 4 jar E2 7.7 3 2 1 2 15 1 0 0 0 0
363 1472 5 jar A 7.94 3 1 1 2 17 3 0 0 0 0
364 1524 1 jar E2 8.04 3 2 1 2 2 5 15 1 0 0
364 1524 2 unknown 7.57 3 3 3 1 2 1 15 2 0 0
364 1524 3 jar A 8.1 2 1 1 2 2 2 15 3 0 0
364 1524 4 bowl C 4.74 1 1 1 1 2 10 16 1 0 0
364 1524 5 olla G 8.7 1 2 3 1 2 3 14 1 0 0
364 1524 6 jar A 5.63 3 2 3 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
364 1524 7 jar E2 7.96 2 1 1 2 2 5 14 1 0 0
364 1524 8 jar A 7.44 3 2 1 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
364 1524 9 olla E 6.71 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 0
364 1524 10 jar A 7.23 2 1 1 2 2 2 9 1 0 0
364 1524 11 olla E 6.93 3 1 1 2 2 5 12 1 0 0
364 1524 12 unknown 15.2 3 1 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
364 1524 13 jar A 4.69 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 1 0 0
364 1524 14 jar A 5.6 2 3 3 1 2 2 9 2 0 0
364 1524 15 jar A 9.11 3 1 1 1 2 1 12 1 0 0
364 1524 16 jar A 7.53 3 2 3 1 2 1 13 2 0 0
364 1524 17 jar A 9.47 3 3 3 2 2 1 14 1 0 0
364 1524 18 jar E1 7.37 2 4 3 2 2 2 19 1 0 0
364 1524 19 jar E2 7.78 1 2 3 2 2 3 17 1 0 0
364 1524 20 jar E2 6.25 3 2 1 2 2 5 18 1 0 0
364 1524 21 jar E2 9.99 3 2 3 2 2 3 20 2 0 0
364 1524 22 jar A 10.54 1 1 1 2 2 1 21 1 0 0
364 1524 23 tinaja B3 11.52 3 3 3 1 2 3 42 2 0 0
364 1524 24 jar E3 11.6 3 3 3 2 2 2 22 1 0 0
364 1524 25 jar E2 10.59 2 1 1 2 2 5 22 1 0 0
364 1524 26 jar A 14.89 3 3 3 2 2 1 34 2 0 0
365 1541 1 jar A 8.04 2 1 2 1 2 1 13 1 0 0
365 1541 2 jar E2 9.72 3 3 3 2 2 5 16 3 0 0
365 1541 3 jar A 11.26 3 3 3 1 2 1 22 1 0 0
365 1541 4 tinaja B3 14.66 3 3 3 1 2 1 27 2 0 0
365 1541 5 tinaja C 20.37 3 3 3 2 2 3 0 2 0 0
unknown
366 1526 1 jar 7.77 1 1 1 3 2 13 4 0 0 0
366 1526 2 jar E2 8.72 1 2 3 3 5 25 2 0 0 0
572
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
366 1526 3 jar E2 10.53 2 1 1 3 5 28 1 0 0 0
366 1526 4 tinaja B1 9.35 3 2 1 4 1 33 1 0 0 0
368 1542 1 olla E 4.58 3 1 1 1 2 5 8 1 0 0
368 1542 2 jar E2 6.75 3 2 3 2 2 5 13 1 0 0
unknown
368 1542 3 bowl 5.97 1 1 1 1 2 10 14 1 0 0
368 1542 4 olla G 6.47 3 2 3 1 2 3 17 1 0 0
368 1542 5 jar E1 8.98 1 2 3 2 2 2 13 1 0 0
368 1542 6 jar A 6.6 3 2 3 2 2 2 14 1 0 0
368 1542 7 jar A 7.5 2 2 3 2 2 2 19 1 0 0
368 1542 8 jar E2 7.71 3 2 3 1 2 5 15 1 0 0
368 1542 9 jar E2 6.7 1 1 1 1 2 5 15 1 0 0
368 1542 10 jar A 8.42 3 1 1 2 2 2 16 2 0 0
368 1542 11 jar E3 10.66 3 2 1 2 2 5 20 4 0 0
368 1542 12 jar E2 6.94 2 2 3 2 2 5 21 1 0 0
368 1542 13 tinaja A3 13.17 2 2 3 2 2 3 34 2 0 0
unknown
369 1546 1 olla 6.14 3 1 1 1 2 2 10 1 0 0
369 1546 2 unknown 4.94 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 0 0
369 1546 3 jar E2 8.04 3 2 3 2 2 5 14 1 0 0
369 1546 4 jar A 8.6 3 2 3 1 2 2 13 2 0 0
369 1546 5 jar A 8.74 3 1 1 1 2 2 14 2 0 0
369 1546 6 jar E3 9.14 3 2 3 2 2 2 15 1 5 0
369 1546 7 unknown 8.1 2 1 1 2 2 5 29 2 0 0
369 1546 8 jar E2 11.03 2 3 3 1 2 5 25 2 0 0
369 1546 9 jar E2 8.12 3 2 3 2 2 5 19 2 0 0
369 1546 10 jar E2 6.97 2 2 1 2 2 5 23 3 0 0
unknown
369 1546 11 tinaja 11.32 3 3 3 2 2 5 44 3 0 0
369 1546 12 unknown 6.44 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
370 1575 1 jar B 7.93 3 3 3 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
370 1575 2 jar A 9.95 3 4 3 2 2 1 15 3 0 0
370 1575 3 jar E1 7.67 3 3 3 2 2 1 20 1 0 0
370 1575 4 jar A 8.66 3 2 3 2 2 1 21 2 0 0
373 1586 1 jar A 10.14 3 2 3 2 1 1 16 3 0 0
377 1597 1 jar A 6.74 2 2 3 2 2 2 17 3 0 0
377 1597 2 jar E2 9.12 2 2 3 2 2 5 19 1 0 0
377 1597 3 jar E2 10.52 3 2 3 2 2 5 24 3 0 0
377 1597 4 jar E2 7.42 3 3 3 2 2 5 32 1 0 0
377 1597 5 tinaja B3 14.49 2 4 3 3 2 1 48 2 0 0
377 1597 6 jar E2 8.46 2 2 3 1 2 3 10 2 0 0
377 1597 7 jar E2 5.88 2 1 1 1 2 5 11 1 0 0
377 1597 8 jar E2 7.1 3 2 3 2 2 1 12 3 0 0
573
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
377 1597 9 jar E3 7.5 2 2 3 2 2 2 16 1 0 46.9
382 1601 1 tinaja B3 15.83 2 4 3 2 2 1 54 2 0 0
384 1627 1 olla B1 8.38 1 2 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 29.36
384 1627 2 bowl C 8.28 1 2 3 2 2 10 24 1 0 0
385 1659 1 olla B1 6.89 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 0
385 1659 2 olla C2 9.79 3 2 3 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 32.35
385 1659 3 tinaja A 11.28 1 3 3 2 2 3 19 2 0 0
385 1659 4 bowl B 8.6 1 2 3 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
385 1659 5 fineware 3.41 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
386 2416 1 olla B2 5.86 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 8 1 0 22.53
386 2416 2 olla B1 5.64 3 2 3 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 28.1
386 2416 3 olla B2 8.9 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 20.75
386 2416 4 olla C1 7.91 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 32.57
386 2416 5 olla B1 5.34 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 7 1 0 18.54
386 2416 6 olla E 4.89 1 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 0
386 2416 7 olla B2 8.43 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 18.27
386 2416 8 olla C1 7.98 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 18.66
386 2416 9 olla B2 9.68 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 13 1 0 23.99
386 2416 10 tinaja A1 20.36 1 4 3 2 2 3 44 1 0 0
386 2416 11 tinaja A1 20.49 3 4 3 2 2 3 27 1 0 0
386 2416 12 tinaja A2 22.69 1 4 3 2 2 3 32 4 0 0
386 2416 13 tinaja B1 15.44 2 3 3 2 2 3 20 1 0 0
386 2416 14 bowl C 4.94 1 1 1 2 2 10 15 2 0 0
386 2416 15 bowl D1 9.92 3 2 1 1 2 2 30 2 0 0
388 1717 1 olla F 7.98 3 1 1 2 2 2 12 1 0 24.2
388 1717 2 bowl D2 7.17 4 1 1 1 2 2 18 2 0 0
389 2414 1 olla A 6.99 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
389 2414 2 olla G2 6.36 3 1 1 2 2 3 10 2 0 0
389 2417 1 olla H2 3.93 1 1 1 1 2 5 11 1 0 17.08
401 1773 1 jar A 7.71 1 2 1 2 2 2 6 1 0 0
401 1773 2 olla C2 7.38 3 2 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 35.31
401 1851 1 olla A 7.28 1 1 1 2 2 5 13 1 0 0
402 2011 1 olla B1 7.81 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 11 1 0 18.61
402 2011 2 bowl D1 7.53 1 1 1 1 2 2 26 2 0 0
403 2006 1 olla C1 5.22 3 2 1 1 2 4.2 8 1 0 22.12
403 2006 2 olla B2 7.38 1 2 3 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 19.98
403 2006 3 olla C2 6.58 4 1 1 2 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
403 2006 4 olla H1 6.2 4 2 1 2 2 1 12 1 0 19.68
403 2006 5 olla F 8.13 1 2 1 2 2 2 13 1 0 14.05
403 2006 6 jar A 8.69 1 2 1 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
403 2006 7 bowl B 7.11 1 2 3 2 2 10 17 1 0 0
403 2006 8 bowl B 7.88 1 2 3 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
403 2006 9 bowl B 9.66 2 3 3 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
574
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
403 2006 10 tinaja A1 27.77 2 4 3 2 2 3 45 1 0 0
404 2180 1 olla C1 6.65 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 8 1 0 30.61
404 2180 2 olla C2 7.05 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 14 1 0 28.37
404 2180 3 bowl B 10.9 3 3 3 2 2 10 16 1 0 0
404 2180 4 bowl C 10 1 3 3 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
404 2180 5 tinaja A1 10.87 3 3 3 2 2 3 29 1 0 0
405 1630 1 olla C2 7.73 2 2 3 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 26.19
405 1630 2 olla C2 9.88 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 32.17
405 1630 3 olla C2 7.49 1 2 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 0
405 1630 4 olla E 6.67 1 1 1 1 1 5 14 1 0 0
405 1630 5 bowl C 9.5 1 3 3 2 2 10 14 1 0 0
405 1630 6 fineware 3.01 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
405 1630 7 jar 5.56 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
405 1630 8 jar 12.87 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
405 1630 9 olla B 5.7 3 2 3 1 1 4 0 0 0 0
406 1708 1 olla C1 7.38 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 44.33
406 1709 1 olla B1 8.1 4 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 19.93
406 1709 2 olla C2 6.21 3 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 0 25.56
406 1709 3 olla H1 4.38 4 2 2 1 2 1 11 1 0 20
406 1709 4 olla B2 6.89 1 2 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 23.52
406 1709 5 bowl D 6.31 1 1 1 2 2 2 22 2 0 0
406 1709 6 tinaja A1 23.84 2 4 3 2 2 3 50 1 0 0
unknown
406 1709 7 jar 10.94 1 2 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
406 1709 8 olla B1 6.75 1 2 1 2 2 4.1 0 0 0 16
408 1776 1 olla C2 6.8 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
408 1867 1 olla C1 10.45 2 23 2 1 4.2 12 1 0 37.5 18.6
409 1855 1 jar A 6.04 1 2 3 1 2 1 8 1 0 0
409 1855 2 olla C1 8.5 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 28.19
409 1855 3 olla B1 9.84 1 2 3 2 2 4.1 11 1 0 33.13
409 1855 4 unknown 8.25 4 1 1 2 2 2 15 4 0 0
unknown
409 1855 5 tinaja 16.54 1 3 3 2 2 2 22 1 0 0
410 1859 1 olla B1 6.7 1 2 3 2 2 4.1 8 1 0 22.78
410 1859 2 olla D2 6.89 3 1 1 1 2 8 9 1 0 32.5
410 1859 3 olla C2 9.19 1 3 3 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 26.8
410 1859 4 bowl B 9.21 2 3 3 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
unknown
410 1859 5 bowl 11.08 2 2 2 2 2 10 23 1 0 0
410 1859 6 unknown 4.64 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
410 1859 7 unknown 4.73 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
575
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
410 1859 8 unknown 5.7 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
410 1859 9 bottle 5.92 1 2 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0
410 1874 1 fineware 4.77 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
411 1863 1 olla B1 5.72 3 2 1 2 2 4.1 7 1 0 0
411 1863 2 olla B1 8.65 3 1 1 2 2 4.1 10 1 0 0
413 1780 1 jar B 7.97 1 3 3 1 2 2 13 1 0 0
413 1780 2 olla C2 9.37 1 2 1 2 2 4.2 14 1 0 31.21
415 1924 1 olla B1 7.65 3 2 3 1 4.1 8 1 0 0 26.01
415 1924 2 olla A 5.52 1 1 1 1 4 11 1 0 0 0
415 1924 3 olla G2 5.73 4 1 1 1 3 11 2 0 0 0
415 1924 4 jar B 8.23 1 3 3 2 2 16 1 0 0 0
415 1924 5 olla G2 7.93 2 3 3 1 3 17 2 0 0 0
416 1929 1 olla E 7.31 1 1 1 2 2 5 10 1 0 19.34
416 1929 2 olla C1 9.42 3 2 3 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 37.61
416 1929 3 olla A 8.52 2 1 1 2 2 4 12 1 0 0
416 1929 4 olla G1 4 4 2 3 1 2 3 9 1 0 0
416 1929 5 olla G1 6.65 3 2 3 2 2 3 9 1 0 0
416 1929 6 olla G1 5.85 3 1 1 2 2 3 10 1 0 0
416 1929 7 bowl B 7.91 2 2 3 2 2 10 15 1 0 0
416 1929 8 olla K 7.39 3 2 3 2 2 1 22 1 0 0
416 1929 9 tinaja A2 19.1 3 4 3 2 2 3 47 2 0 0
416 1929 10 fineware 4.89 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
417 1936 1 olla C1 10.46 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 29.65
417 1936 2 olla C1 8.55 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
417 1936 3 olla C1 8.89 2 2 1 2 2 4.2 14 1 0 26.43
417 1936 4 olla G1 4.53 4 2 3 1 2 3 12 1 0 0
417 1936 5 bowl D1 7.52 2 1 1 1 2 10 18 2 0 0
417 1936 6 fineware 5.91 4 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
417 1936 7 fineware 6.74 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
418 1939 1 olla C1 7.56 3 2 3 2 2 4.2 8 1 0 0
418 1939 2 olla B1 8.86 2 1 1 2 2 4.1 9 1 0 25.93
418 1939 3 jar A 7.83 1 2 3 2 2 3 18 1 0 0
418 1939 4 olla G2 3.49 4 1 1 1 2 3 16 2 0 0
418 1939 5 unknown 6.52 4 2 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
419 1943 1 olla B1 8.65 4 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 27.47
419 1958 1 tinaja A1 21.6 2 4 3 1 2 3 44 1 0 0
425 2015 1 olla B2 8.97 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 14 1 0 19.85
425 2065 1 olla B2 6.8 1 2 3 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 17.76
425 2065 2 olla B2 10.31 1 2 3 2 2 4.1 10 1 0 22.11
425 2065 3 olla B2 8.82 1 2 3 2 2 4.1 10 1 0 20.92
425 2065 4 olla F 9.73 3 2 3 1 2 2 11 1 0 15.87
425 2065 5 bowl B 8.66 3 2 3 2 2 10 20 1 0 0
425 2065 6 bowl D2 10.24 4 1 1 1 2 2 27 2 0 0
576
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
425 2065 7 jar A 8.27 1 1 1 2 2 2 14 1 0 0
unknown
425 2065 8 jar 14.29 1 2 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
425 2065 9 bowl D2 7.36 4 1 1 2 2 2 16 2 0 0
427 2071 1 olla D1 7.57 3 1 1 2 2 6 10 1 0 0
427 2071 2 olla B2 5.43 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 0
427 2071 3 olla B2 8.21 1 2 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 25.03
431 2084 1 unknown 8.22 1 2 3 2 2 2 18 1 0 0
434 2119 1 olla H1 4.63 4 2 3 1 2 1 7 1 0 0
434 2119 2 olla C2 7.3 1 2 2 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 28.96
434 2119 3 olla C1 7.81 1 2 2 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 25.24
434 2119 4 olla F 5.62 1 2 3 2 2 2 11 1 0 13.06
434 2119 5 molde 8.89 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
436 2120 1 bowl C 6.15 1 2 1 1 2 10 11 1 0 0
436 2120 2 jar B 10.5 1 3 3 2 2 2 15 1 0 0
436 2120 3 olla C2 5.23 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 0
unknown
436 2120 4 bowl 6.76 1 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
436 2120 5 unknown 4.54 1 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
437 2117 1 tinaja A1 25.28 1 3 3 2 2 3 51 1 0 0
447 2310 1 bowl B 6.32 1 2 3 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
447 2310 2 bowl B 8.71 3 2 3 2 2 10 24 1 0 0
447 2310 3 bowl B 7.6 1 3 3 2 2 10 27 1 0 0
447 2310 4 tinaja A3 18.23 2 4 3 2 2 3 57 2 0 0
448 2367 1 olla E 5.56 1 1 1 2 2 5 11 1 0 21.88
448 2367 2 olla C2 8.29 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 30.16
448 2367 3 olla C1 6.65 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 16 1 0 0
448 2367 4 unknown 7.17 1 2 3 1 2 2 18 4 0 0
448 2367 5 bowl C 9.88 3 3 3 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
448 2367 6 jar B 7.28 3 1 3 2 2 2 20 1 0 0
448 2367 7 bowl C 7.6 1 2 1 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
448 2367 8 bowl C 8.6 1 2 3 2 2 10 22 1 0 0
448 2367 9 tinaja A3 17.49 1 4 3 1 2 3 18 2 0 0
unknown
448 2367 10 bowl 9.42 3 2 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
449 2370 1 bowl B 11.72 2 3 1 2 10 23 1 0 0 0
450 2261 1 jar A 8.52 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 1 0 0
451 2262 1 jar E 6.15 4 1 1 1 2 5 12 1 0 0
451 2262 2 jar A 8.42 1 2 3 2 2 2 18 1 0 0
451 2262 3 tinaja A1 21.5 2 4 3 1 2 3 46 1 0 0
458 2293 1 unknown 4.55 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
458 2296 1 bowl B 7.7 2 1 1 2 2 10 23 1 0 0
459 2314 1 unknown 5.74 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
577
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
467 1635 1 unknown 5.84 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
467 1635 2 unknown 6.2 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
467 1635 3 olla B2 6.22 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 18.66
467 1635 4 olla C2 9.53 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 15 1 0 34.09
467 1635 5 bowl D1 6.89 1 1 1 1 2 2 19 2 0 0
467 1635 6 tinaja A1 26.64 1 4 3 1 2 3 50 1 0 0
467 1635 7 tinaja B1 28.63 1 4 3 2 2 1 56 1 0 0
468 1665 1 olla C2 6.5 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 22.63
468 1665 2 bowl D1 9.15 4 1 1 1 2 2 16 2 0 0
unknown
468 1665 3 jar 12.59 2 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
468 1665 4 bowl B 7.99 2 2 1 2 2 10 25 3 0 0
469 1727 1 olla C2 6.6 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
469 1727 2 olla C2 8.48 3 2 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 26.95
469 1727 3 olla B2 6.6 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 21.8
469 1727 4 bowl D2 9.08 4 2 1 1 2 1 13 1 0 0
unknown
469 1727 5 bowl 5.85 1 2 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0
469 1727 6 tinaja A1 11.85 3 3 3 2 2 3 24 1 0 0
471 1889 1 olla C2 8 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 28.25
471 1889 2 jar A 10.52 3 2 3 2 2 1 23 2 0 0
471 1889 3 unknown 8.2 3 2 3 2 2 1 24 2 0 0
472 1969 1 olla C1 8.05 3 2 1 2 2 4.2 6 1 0 19.5
472 1969 2 olla B1 6.85 1 2 1 2 2 4.1 8 1 0 23.66
472 1969 3 olla C2 6.2 4 2 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 29.1
472 1969 4 olla C2 6.54 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
472 1969 5 olla A 5.8 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 0 27.94
472 1969 6 olla E 7.01 1 1 1 1 2 5 10 1 0 0
472 1969 7 olla C1 6.49 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
472 1969 8 bowl C 8.02 1 1 1 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
472 1969 9 bowl C 7.01 2 2 1 2 2 10 19 1 0 0
472 1969 10 jar A 9.16 3 2 3 2 2 1 18 1 0 0
472 1969 11 bowl B 7.47 2 2 1 2 2 10 20 1 0 0
472 1969 12 bowl B 7.34 3 1 3 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
472 1969 13 bowl B 8.46 3 2 3 2 2 10 23 1 0 0
472 1969 14 unknown 8.63 2 2 1 2 2 5 18 2 0 0
472 1969 15 bowl D1 6.47 2 1 1 1 2 2 23 2 0 0
472 1969 16 bowl D1 8.25 3 1 1 1 2 2 17 2 0 0
472 1969 17 unknown 10.75 3 2 3 2 2 1 17 1 0 0
472 1969 18 unknown 5.24 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
472 1969 19 fineware 4.46 4 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
472 1969 20 unknown 6.21 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
473 1825 1 bowl D2 8.26 4 1 1 1 2 2 17 2 0 0
578
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
473 1825 2 tinaja A1 26.47 2 3 3 2 2 3 58 1 0 0
473 1831 1 olla C2 7.89 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
473 1831 2 olla A 5.34 3 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 0 19.82
unknown
473 1831 3 bowl 8.95 3 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
473 1831 4 tinaja A1 16.78 3 3 3 1 2 3 17 1 0 0
473 1831 5 bowl D1 7.01 1 1 1 1 2 2 20 2 0 0
474 1970 1 bowl D1 7.13 1 1 1 1 2 2 18 2 0 0
476 2132 1 bowl D2 8.27 4 1 1 1 2 2 21 2 0 0
476 2132 2 bowl B 6.72 1 1 1 1 2 10 21 1 0 0
477 2377 1 olla C1 5.93 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
477 2377 2 adorno 8.69 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
478 1724 1 olla C1 4.26 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
478 1724 2 olla C2 8.56 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
478 1724 3 olla B2 7.29 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 16.4
478 1724 4 olla C2 6.38 2 2 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 26.25
478 1724 5 bowl D2 6.6 4 1 1 1 2 1 20 2 0 0
478 1724 6 unknown 9.1 3 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
481 1898 1 olla D2 7.06 3 3 3 1 1 5 11 1 0 0
487 2137 1 olla J 7.51 1 2 3 2 2 7 13 1 0 0
487 2137 2 bowl D1 8.01 4 1 1 1 2 2 22 2 0 0
489 2191 1 bowl D2 9.08 1 1 1 1 2 2 22 2 0 0
unknown
490 2378 1 olla 4.42 3 1 1 1 2 9 16 1 0 0
492 2207 1 tinaja A3 10.86 1 2 3 2 2 3 18 1 0 0
492 2207 2 olla A 8.14 1 1 1 1 2 4 9 1 0 18.42
492 2207 3 olla E 5.46 1 2 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 0
492 2207 4 olla C1 4.79 1 2 3 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 23.53
492 2207 5 olla C1 6.92 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 30.17
492 2207 6 bowl C 7.62 1 2 3 2 2 10 20 1 0 0
492 2207 7 bowl B 8.82 3 3 3 2 2 10 25 1 0 0
492 2207 8 bowl B 7.32 2 3 3 2 2 10 26 1 0 0
492 2207 9 tinaja B3 10.36 3 3 3 1 2 1 37 2 0 0
492 2207 10 tinaja A1 10.2 3 2 3 2 2 3 44 1 0 0
492 2207 11 rallador A 7.14 1 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0
495 2206 1 bowl B 6.26 1 1 1 1 2 10 20 1 0 0
499 2322 1 olla G 6.63 2 1 1 1 2 3 13 1 0 0
506 2327 1 olla C2 5.57 3 2 3 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 28
506 2327 2 olla C2 9.87 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 22.89
506 2327 3 bowl C 6.07 3 1 1 1 2 10 19 1 0 0
506 2327 4 bowl D1 7.11 4 1 1 1 8 2 21 2 0 0
508 2427 1 bowl B 8.86 1 2 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
513 2439 1 olla C 6.67 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
579
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
526 2511 1 jar A 9.17 1 3 3 1 2 1 10 2 0 0
529 2518 1 olla F 6.91 4 1 1 1 2 2 17 1 0 0
unknown
532 1642 1 bowl 8.22 1 1 3 1 9 0 0 0 0 0
533 1650 1 olla B1 8.55 3 1 3 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 0
538 1676 1 bowl D2 7.96 2 1 1 2 2 2 17 2 0 0
538 1676 2 fineware 4.97 3 1 1 1 8 0 0 0 0 0
539 1682 1 jar A 6.76 4 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 0 0
539 1682 2 unknown 6.56 1 1 1 2 2 9 10 1 0 0
539 1682 3 bowl C 7.36 1 2 3 1 2 10 14 1 0 0
539 1682 4 unknown 5.23 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
539 1682 5 rallador A 7.24 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
539 1738 1 olla B1 5.34 2 1 3 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 18.26
539 1738 2 bowl D2 7.17 4 1 3 1 2 2 14 2 0 0
539 1738 3 unknown 5.84 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
539 1738 4 bowl B 9.38 4 1 1 1 2 2 22 1 0 0
540 1748 1 olla C2 7.83 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 26.38
541 1750 1 olla C1 7.56 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 24.94
541 1750 2 olla B2 6.33 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 11 1 0 0
541 1750 3 olla C2 6.93 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 14 1 0 23.83
548 1693 1 0 5.75 3 1 1 1 2 2 8 1 0 0
548 1693 2 0 7.77 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 14 1 0 24.3
548 1693 3 unknown 6.74 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
550 1791 1 olla B1 8.03 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 0
550 1791 2 olla C1 8.29 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 26.76
550 1791 3 bowl D2 6.49 1 1 3 1 2 1 15 1 0 0
550 1791 4 bowl D1 8.76 4 1 1 2 2 2 26 2 0 0
unknown
550 1791 5 bowl 5.3 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
unknown
552 1797 1 bowl 14.65 4 2 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
552 1797 2 tinaja A1 21.02 2 4 3 2 2 3 55 1 0 0
553 1887 1 bowl B 8.66 2 1 1 2 2 10 21 1 0 0
553 1887 2 bowl C 6.94 2 1 3 1 2 10 25 1 0 0
553 1887 3 rallador B 6.92 1 2 3 2 2 10 23 1 0 0
553 1887 4 tinaja A1 23.99 1 3 3 2 1 3 59 1 0 0
553 1887 5 olla B2 5.77 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 22.99
553 1887 6 jar E2 9.8 3 2 3 2 2 1 15 1 1 0
554 1810 1 jar E2 6.91 1 1 3 2 2 5 15 1 0 0
554 1810 2 bowl B 7.43 1 2 3 2 2 10 17 1 0 80.18
554 1810 3 bowl C 9.35 1 1 3 2 2 1 20 1 0 0
556 1761 1 olla B1 9.32 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 22.5
558 1843 1 olla B1 7.19 3 1 1 2 2 4.1 10 1 0 19.7
580
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
558 1843 2 olla G1 5.95 4 2 1 1 2 3 19 1 0 0
559 1906 1 olla B2 8.22 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 18.38
559 1906 2 fineware 4.74 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
560 2103 1 olla C1 7.15 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 7 1 0 27.35
560 2103 2 olla B1 7.86 1 1 3 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 26.13
560 2103 3 olla E 6.26 2 1 1 1 2 5 11 1 0 20.09
560 2103 4 bowl D2 7.44 3 1 1 2 2 2 18 2 0 0
561 1916 1 tinaja C2 23.17 3 4 3 2 2 3 39 4 0 0
561 1916 2 fineware 4.32 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
561 1978 1 olla B1 5.5 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 22.52
561 1978 2 olla B2 7.25 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 0
561 1978 3 tinaja C2 18.93 2 4 3 2 2 3 43 4 0 0
563 1979 1 unknown 9.28 1 1 1 2 2 2 17 1 0 0
565 2143 1 olla B1 5.62 3 2 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 21.32
565 2143 2 tinaja A1 22.33 2 4 3 1 2 3 44 1 0 0
568 1988 1 olla B1 6.66 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 24.64
568 1988 2 olla C1 7.77 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 8 1 0 25.75
568 1988 3 olla B1 6.87 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 26.78
568 1988 4 jar A 11.28 1 2 1 1 2 2 13 1 0 0
568 1988 5 bowl B 7.29 4 2 1 1 2 10 23 1 0 0
568 1988 6 unknown 4.45 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
568 1988 7 tinaja A1 24.27 2 4 3 2 2 3 50 1 0 0
568 1988 8 tinaja A1 25.52 3 4 3 2 2 3 53 1 0 0
568 1988 9 tinaja A1 29.51 3 4 3 2 2 3 60 1 0 0
570 2021 1 olla C1 6.32 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 15 1 0 0
570 2021 2 bowl C 7.46 1 2 3 2 2 10 16 1 0 0
570 2021 3 bowl D2 9.41 4 1 1 1 2 2 17 2 0 0
571 2031 1 olla C1 6.26 2 2 1 2 2 4.2 8 1 0 0
571 2031 2 olla B2 5.12 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 20.58
571 2031 3 olla C1 6.58 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 9 1 0 30.41
571 2031 4 olla C1 8.23 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
571 2031 5 olla C1 5.52 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
571 2031 6 olla C2 10 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 24.2
571 2031 7 olla C2 6.36 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 25.37
571 2031 8 olla E 7.4 2 1 1 1 2 5 14 1 0 31.17
571 2031 9 olla B2 9.64 3 2 1 1 2 4.1 16 1 0 21.9
571 2031 10 bowl B 7.18 3 1 1 2 2 10 17 1 0 0
571 2031 11 bowl B 8.12 1 1 1 1 2 10 22 1 0 0
571 2031 12 bowl C 9.07 2 2 1 2 2 10 22 1 0 0
571 2031 13 tinaja A3 14.75 2 4 3 2 2 3 42 2 0 0
571 2031 14 tinaja A1 20.7 2 4 3 1 2 3 48 1 0 0
571 2031 15 tinaja A3 13.25 2 3 3 2 2 3 21 2 0 0
571 2031 16 tinaja A1 24.64 2 4 3 2 2 3 32 1 0 0
581
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
571 2031 17 tinaja A1 27.23 1 4 3 2 2 3 60 1 0 0
571 2031 18 unknown 4.15 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
572 2030 1 olla E 4.91 2 1 1 1 2 5 7 1 0 16.96
572 2030 2 olla A 7.58 2 1 1 2 2 4 10 1 0 0
572 2030 3 unknown 6.95 4 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0
573 2089 1 jar A 6.35 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 0 62
573 2089 2 olla C1 6.9 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
573 2089 3 olla C2 6.92 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 25.28
573 2089 4 olla C1 7.41 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 0
573 2089 5 bowl D2 5.68 1 1 1 1 2 2 20 2 0 0
574 2090 1 rallador B 11.64 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
575 2156 1 tinaja A1 28.4 2 4 3 2 3 1 60 1 0 0
575 2157 1 tinaja A1 23.31 1 3 3 2 2 3 49 1 0 0
576 2158 1 olla C2 5.76 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 0
578 2235 1 olla C2 5.77 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 26.35
581 2288 1 bowl B 6.2 1 1 1 1 2 10 15 1 0 0
582 2160 1 olla C2 6.52 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 23.66
582 2160 2 bowl B 6.71 3 2 3 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
582 2160 3 tinaja A1 30.44 2 4 3 2 2 3 53 1 0 0
583 2214 1 olla B2 5.84 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 8 1 0 23.89
590 2337 1 olla G2 4.92 1 2 3 2 2 3 20 2 0 0
590 2337 2 jar B 10.97 1 2 3 2 2 2 47 9 0 0
590 2344 1 olla B2 8.42 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 21.33
590 2344 2 olla J 7.62 3 1 1 1 2 7 10 1 0 0
590 2344 3 olla B2 7.14 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 25.61
590 2344 4 jar B 5.34 4 1 1 1 2 2 6 1 0 0
590 2344 5 botella 6.4 4 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 0 0
590 2344 6 olla G1 4.38 1 2 1 1 2 3 13 1 0 0
590 2344 7 unknown 7.67 4 1 1 1 2 3 13 1 0 0
590 2344 8 bowl C 7.09 3 1 1 2 2 10 14 1 0 0
590 2344 9 jar B 8.76 1 1 1 2 2 2 18 1 0 0
590 2344 10 tinaja A1 15.02 3 4 3 2 2 3 35 1 0 0
590 2344 11 tinaja B1 18.94 2 4 3 2 2 1 50 1 0 0
590 2344 12 tinaja A2 26.47 1 4 3 2 2 3 57 4 0 0
591 2345 1 olla C1 8.67 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 29.9
591 2345 2 olla C1 9.7 1 2 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 0
591 2345 3 olla C2 10.26 1 2 3 2 2 4.2 11 1 0 31.9
591 2345 4 olla C1 7.88 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 34.96
591 2345 5 olla B 8.52 2 1 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 0
591 2345 6 olla C2 9.71 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 14 1 0 37.38
591 2345 7 olla C1 7.18 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 15 1 0 31.02
591 2345 8 olla C2 6.78 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 15 1 0 22.85
591 2345 9 olla C2 9.26 3 2 3 2 2 4.2 12 1 0 33.01
582
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
591 2345 10 jar A 8.86 1 2 1 2 2 2 17 2 0 0
591 2345 11 bowl C 7.26 1 1 1 2 2 10 17 2 0 0
591 2345 12 unknown 10.28 1 2 1 1 2 2 18 1 0 0
592 2357 1 olla H1 7.24 3 1 1 1 2 1 7 1 0 0
592 2357 2 olla C1 8.9 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 0
592 2357 3 olla B2 7.57 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 23.34
unknown
592 2357 4 jar 11.05 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
592 2357 5 jar A 7.42 1 2 1 1 2 2 6 1 0 0
592 2357 6 jar A 7.24 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 1 0 0
592 2357 7 olla E 6.79 1 1 1 1 2 5 12 1 0 21.54
unknown
592 2357 8 jar 13.17 1 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
592 2357 9 tinaja A1 29.68 3 4 3 2 2 3 44 1 0 0
593 2803 1 olla B2 7.2 3 1 3 1 2 4.1 9 1 0 17.37
593 2803 2 jar B 7 1 1 1 1 2 2 10 1 0 0
593 2803 3 olla B2 6.62 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 23.12
594 2802 1 bowl D2 7.54 3 1 1 1 2 2 20 2 0 0
594 2802 2 bowl D2 7.85 4 1 1 1 2 10 24 2 0 0
594 2802 3 tinaja A2 17.89 3 4 3 2 2 3 40 4 0 0
595 2486 1 olla B2 6.28 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 16.66
595 2486 2 bowl D1 5.67 4 1 1 1 2 10 17 2 0 0
595 2487 1 olla E 7.85 1 1 1 1 2 5 9 1 0 0
596 2526 1 olla C2 7.57 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 9 1 0 25.68
596 2526 2 olla B1 9.72 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 20.95
596 2526 3 olla B2 7.05 3 1 3 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 19.44
596 2526 4 olla B1 6.69 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 13 1 0 17.57
596 2526 5 olla C2 7.33 3 2 1 1 2 4.2 15 1 0 22.22
596 2526 6 tinaja A2 17.84 2 4 3 2 2 3 39 4 0 0
596 2526 7 jar B 4.97 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 1 0 0
596 2526 8 jar B 8.8 1 2 1 1 2 2 19 1 0 0
596 2526 9 bowl D 5.05 3 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0
599 2473 1 bowl D2 6.17 4 1 1 1 2 2 14 2 0 0
599 2473 2 bowl C 7.36 1 2 1 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
599 2473 3 bowl B 7.97 1 1 1 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
601 2537 1 jar A 9.37 1 1 3 2 2 2 15 1 0 71.86
601 2537 2 bowl D 11.55 3 1 1 2 2 2 19 1 0 0
608 2404 1 olla E 5.98 1 1 1 2 2 5 8 1 0 22.93
608 2404 2 bowl D2 7.77 3 1 1 2 2 10 11 2 0 0
608 2404 3 fineware 2.6 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
608 2405 1 bowl C 6.23 1 1 1 1 2 10 14 1 0 0
608 2405 2 bowl D1 8.47 4 1 1 1 2 2 15 1 0 0
609 2467 1 unknown 7.6 1 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 0 0
583
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
609 2467 2 olla E 6.48 4 1 3 1 2 5 11 1 0 27.33
609 2467 3 unknown 8.43 3 2 3 1 2 3 16 1 0 0
609 2467 4 tinaja A1 27.38 3 4 3 2 2 3 60 1 0 0
611 2527 1 olla C1 8.22 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 30
611 2527 2 jar E2 9.52 1 2 3 1 2 5 16 1 0 0
611 2530 1 olla B2 8.73 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 0 1 0 17.86
612 2560 1 jar A 7.81 1 2 3 2 2 2 11 1 0 0
613 2528 1 jar B 8.48 1 1 3 2 2 2 10 1 0 0
613 2528 2 olla E 5.05 3 1 1 1 2 5 12 1 0 0
614 2567 1 jar A 6.2 1 2 3 1 2 1 10 1 0 0
617 2575 1 olla J 6.07 3 1 1 2 2 7 10 1 0 0
617 2575 2 jar A 7.77 1 1 3 1 2 2 14 1 0 0
617 2575 3 bowl C 8.35 1 1 1 1 2 10 16 1 0 0
617 2575 4 unknown 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
618 2469 1 bowl D2 5.9 4 1 1 1 2 1 25 2 0 0
623 2583 1 olla J 9.7 1 2 3 2 2 7 18 1 0 39.66
623 2583 2 tinaja A3 17.1 2 3 3 2 2 3 35 2 0 0
629 2602 1 olla B2 8.72 2 1 1 1 2 4 8 1 0 19.72
629 2602 2 olla C1 7.67 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 28.71
629 2602 3 olla H1 5.37 4 1 1 1 2 1 14 1 0 20.6
630 2603 1 tinaja A1 14.69 3 3 3 2 2 3 35 1 0 0
630 2603 2 rallador A 5.86 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
632 2609 1 olla C1 7.27 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 30.08
632 2609 1 bowl B 9.22 3 2 1 1 2 10 24 1 0 0
633 2690 1 olla B1 6.92 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 16.25
634 2611 1 olla B2 9.95 0 0 0 0 2 4.1 0 0 0 31.59
635 2663 1 olla C 6.75 3 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 22.89
635 2692 1 bowl B 8.2 1 2 1 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
635 2692 2 bowl C 8.66 3 1 1 2 2 10 0 1 0 0
636 2665 1 olla B2 7.06 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 19.93
636 2665 2 bowl B 6.78 3 1 1 1 2 10 17 1 0 0
636 2665 3 unknown 9.54 1 1 1 2 2 2 21 1 0 0
637 2669 1 olla A 8.09 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 1 0 26.62
638 2672 1 olla B2 8.36 1 1 1 1 2 4.1 11 1 0 26.39
639 2677 1 olla B2 9.77 1 1 1 2 2 4.1 10 1 0 29.86
639 2677 2 olla C1 7.74 3 2 3 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 32.3
639 2677 3 olla C1 8.78 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 15 1 0 25.71
639 2677 4 bowl B 5.43 1 2 1 2 2 10 16 1 0 0
640 2681 1 jar B 12.69 2 1 1 1 2 2 17 1 0 0
unknown
640 2681 2 jar 12.8 1 2 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
641 2685 1 olla E 5.73 2 1 1 1 2 5 11 1 0 21.57
641 2685 2 olla C2 5.8 2 1 1 1 2 4.2 11 1 0 22.08
584
Rim diameter
Temper type
Temper size
Neck height
Thickness
Neck type
Rim type
Lip type
Context
Firing
Color
Type
Part
Bag
#
641 2685 3 olla C2 7.99 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 30.21
644 2691 1 tinaja A3 24.64 1 4 3 2 2 3 47 2 0 0
645 2772 1 olla B2 6.69 3 1 1 1 2 4.1 12 1 0 18.46
645 2772 2 jar B 9.79 1 1 1 2 2 2 14 1 0 79.6
645 2772 3 tinaja A1 28.71 3 4 3 2 2 3 42 1 0 0
647 2641 1 tinaja A3 14.39 3 3 1 2 2 3 30 2 0 0
652 2628 1 olla H2 4.41 4 1 1 1 2 5 7 2 0 22.57
652 2628 1 olla J 7.45 1 1 1 2 2 7 8 1 0 22.04
652 2628 2 unknown 4.33 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
652 2628 2 olla C2 4.99 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 29.57
652 2628 3 olla C2 9.29 2 2 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 26.83
652 2628 4 olla C2 8.76 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 14 1 0 26.85
652 2628 5 bowl D1 6.16 2 1 1 1 2 2 13 2 0 0
652 2628 6 jar A 8.89 1 1 1 1 2 2 12 1 0 0
652 2628 7 bowl B 7.35 1 1 1 2 2 10 18 1 0 0
652 2628 8 unknown 22.34 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
653 2712 1 olla C2 7.61 1 1 1 1 2 4.2 10 1 0 41.13
653 2712 2 unknown 7.41 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0
654 2632 1 olla G2 4.52 4 1 1 1 2 3 9 2 0 0
654 2632 2 olla C1 8.11 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 13 1 0 26.94
658 2725 1 olla C2 5.72 1 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 28.59
658 2725 2 olla C2 7.51 2 1 1 2 2 4.2 10 1 0 25.77
658 2725 3 olla B1 11.47 2 1 1 1 2 4.1 10 1 0 0
658 2725 4 unknown 4.2 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
658 2725 5 unknown 3.52 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
663 2735 1 olla B1 10 0 0 0 0 8 4.1 12 1 0 32.31
663 2736 1 olla A 7.3 3 1 1 1 2 4 11 1 0 0
664 2760 1 tinaja A3 21.33 3 4 3 1 2 3 25 2 0 0
665 2761 1 tinaja A1 25.08 2 4 3 2 2 3 41 1 0 0
667 2754 1 olla C2 8.46 3 1 1 1 2 4.2 12 1 0 0
Table A.16. Ceramic data 2

Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
0 1 1 12.4 12.09 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 0

0 1 2 8.38 15.17 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
585
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
0 1 3 12.99 14.88 0 0 3 0 0 2.1 1 0
0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 1 5 9.73 15.53 0 0 0 0 1.2 1 1 0
0 1 6 9.53 10.12 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
0 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.3 2.1 1 0
0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 2.3 1 0
0 2285 1 11.17 11.39 0 0 0 0 1.2 2.1 2.11 0
0 2285 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 3 1 0
0 2285 3 0 0 3 20.84 0 0 3.0 3 0 0
0 2655 1 8.11 10.73 0 0 3 0 0 2.2 2.2 0
0 2655 2 11.59 12.31 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
0 2655 3 15.75 17.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 2655 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
0 2655 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.0 1 1 0
0 2655 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 2655 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
0 2655 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
0 2655 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.2 0
0 2655 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
0 2773 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0
0 2774 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 2775 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2.3 0
0 2775 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 1 0
0 2775 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 2.1 2.1 0
0 2775 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 1 1 0
0 2775 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 2.1 2.1 0
0 2775 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 1 1 0
2 41 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
2 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 1 0
2 41 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 3 0 0
4 69 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
4 69 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
4 69 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
4 69 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 0 0
4 69 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 0 0
4 69 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.4 1 0
4 69 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 0
6 168 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
6 168 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 1 0
586
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
6 168 3 8.7 13.35 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
6 168 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
6 168 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 1 0
6 172 1 10.35 13.46 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
9 80 1 10.38 11.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
9 80 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
9 80 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
9 80 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 0 0
9 80 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 0 0
9 80 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.7 0
9 80 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
9 80 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
10 118 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 0
10 123 1 13.85 10.47 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
10 123 2 8.08 14.87 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
10 123 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
10 123 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
10 123 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
10 123 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
10 123 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
16 317 1 9.07 10.16 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
16 317 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 1 0
16 317 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 2.1 1 0
16 317 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
16 353 1 13.88 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
16 353 2 11.7 15.93 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
16 353 3 9.78 12.06 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
16 353 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
16 353 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 3 0 1
16 353 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 3.0 2.1 1 0
17 319 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
18 323 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
18 323 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
18 323 3 11.57 16.76 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
18 323 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.3 2.1 1 0
18 323 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 1
18 323 6 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0
19 367 1 12.9 12.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
19 367 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
19 367 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
19 367 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
19 367 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
19 367 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
587
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
19 367 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
19 367 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0
19 367 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2
19 367 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
19 367 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.2 1 0
20 376 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
20 376 2 12 13.92 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
20 376 3 12.12 13.48 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
20 376 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
20 379 1 13.53 15.42 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
20 379 2 11.22 12.97 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
20 379 3 11.88 13.57 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
20 379 4 13.39 15.98 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
20 379 5 11.33 19.86 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
20 379 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
20 379 7 10.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
20 379 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
20 379 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 0
20 379 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
20 379 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.1 0
20 379 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
20 379 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
20 379 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
20 379 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
20 379 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 2.1 1 0
20 379 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
20 379 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 1
20 379 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 1 0
20 379 20 6.98 22.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
20 379 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
20 379 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
20 379 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
20 379 24 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2.4 1 0
20 379 25 0 0 0 0 1 0 4.0 2.1 0 1
27 388 1 10.77 12.45 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
29 406 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
29 406 2 10.7 9.91 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
29 406 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
31 410 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
32 412 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
32 412 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
38 475 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
38 475 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
588
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
38 475 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
40 465 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
44 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 1 1 1
44 21 1 13.22 13.47 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
44 21 2 20.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
44 21 3 10.5 11.37 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
44 21 4 9.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
44 21 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
44 21 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 1 0 0
44 21 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 1 0
44 21 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 3 0
44 21 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
44 21 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
45 22 1 9.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
45 22 2 10.19 9.84 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
45 22 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
45 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
45 22 5 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
45 22 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 0 0
46 68 1 0 8.82 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
46 68 2 11.26 10.76 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
46 68 3 10.98 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
46 68 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0
46 68 5 0 0 2 9.75 0 0 0 9 1 0
46 68 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 1 0
46 68 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
46 68 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 1 0
46 68 9 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
46 68 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
46 68 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
48 107 1 10.15 14.28 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0
48 107 2 8.97 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
48 107 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
48 107 4 10.7 10.16 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
48 107 5 15.92 10.85 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
48 107 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
48 107 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 0 1
48 107 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
48 107 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
3 and
48 107 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0
48 107 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 1 0
48 107 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
589
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
49 148 1 13.54 11.93 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
49 148 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 9 1 0
49 148 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
49 148 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
49 148 5 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
50 158 1 13.46 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
50 158 2 12.67 11.26 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
50 158 3 11.14 14.04 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
50 158 4 9.97 13.9 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
50 158 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
50 158 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
50 158 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 1 0
50 158 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 1 0
50 158 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 0 0
51 201 1 12.59 11.02 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
52 258 1 10.7 12.9 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 1 1
52 258 2 12.19 12.19 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
52 258 3 10.45 9.76 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 1
52 258 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
52 258 5 6.7 15.3 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
52 258 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
52 258 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
52 258 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 2.1 1 0
52 258 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
52 258 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 1 1 1
52 258 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
53 299 1 9.84 10.61 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
53 299 2 15.87 17.54 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
53 299 3 0 0 3 19 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
53 299 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
53 299 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 1 3 0
53 299 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 3 0
53 299 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
53 299 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 1
53 299 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2 0
53 299 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 2.1 0 0
53 299 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 0 0
53 299 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 0 0
54 26 1 10.2 13.28 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
54 26 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 0 0 0
54 26 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 1 1 0
55 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
55 30 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
590
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
55 30 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
55 30 4 13.3 10.7 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0
55 30 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
55 30 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 1 1 0
56 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
56 67 1 9.64 13.18 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
56 67 2 13.64 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
56 67 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
56 67 4 10.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
56 67 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
56 67 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 1 1
64 202 1 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
64 202 2 10.69 8.08 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
64 202 3 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
64 202 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
64 202 5 11.43 14.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
64 202 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
64 202 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
64 202 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 1 1 0
64 259 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
64 259 2 11.51 14.51 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
64 259 3 13.03 10.54 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
64 259 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
64 259 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
64 259 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
64 259 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
64 259 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
64 259 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
64 259 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 1 0
64 259 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 1 1 0
64 259 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 3 1 0
64 268 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0
65 309 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 1 0
65 309 2 12.59 8.69 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
65 309 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
65 309 4 11.39 9.24 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
65 309 5 13.94 8.56 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
65 309 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
65 309 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.3 0
65 309 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2
65 309 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 1
65 309 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
65 309 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
591
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
65 309 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.3 1 0
66 260 1 15.72 14.7 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
66 260 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
66 260 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 1 1 0
68 267 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
68 267 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 2.1 2.1 0
68 267 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 2.1 1 0
69 303 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
69 303 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 1
72 363 1 15 15 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
72 363 2 6.35 12.7 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
72 363 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
72 363 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.1 0
72 363 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
72 363 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 2.3 0 0
74 209 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 48 1 10.22 14.04 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
76 48 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 48 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 0 0
76 195 1 12.35 9.61 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
76 195 2 9.93 15.74 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
76 195 3 15.32 18.57 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 0
76 195 4 10.71 8.49 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
76 195 5 10.3 10.3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
76 195 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
76 195 7 12.8 13.79 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
76 195 8 9.19 13.51 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 9 12.5 11.62 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 10 11.82 10.02 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
76 195 11 13.71 15.16 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
76 195 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
76 195 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
76 195 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
76 195 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 16 9.67 10.32 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 17 9.76 14.32 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 1
76 195 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
76 195 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
76 195 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
76 195 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
592
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
76 195 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 0
76 195 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
76 195 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
76 195 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
76 195 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
76 195 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 2.2 0 0
76 195 34 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
76 195 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 0
76 195 36 0 0 2 5.23 0 0 0 1 1 0
76 195 37 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
76 195 38 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
76 195 39 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
76 195 40 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.3 1 0 0
76 195 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 0
76 195 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
76 195 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
76 195 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 0 0
78 92 1 8.28 15.08 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
78 92 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
78 92 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
78 92 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 2.1 1 0
78 92 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 0
78 92 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
79 88 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0
79 88 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 1 1 0
79 88 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 1 0
80 133 1 9.21 11.48 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
80 133 2 16.83 14.52 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
80 133 3 13.17 10.74 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
80 133 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
80 133 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.2 1 0
80 133 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2.1 1 0
81 191 1 12.44 12.02 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
82 139 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.5 0
82 139 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
82 139 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
82 139 4 8.26 13.08 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
82 139 5 10.59 9.08 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
82 139 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 1
82 139 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
593
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
82 143 1 11.56 16.6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
83 189 1 10.98 16.31 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.5 1
83 189 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
83 189 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
83 189 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
83 189 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
83 189 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
83 189 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
83 189 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
84 190 1 16.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
84 190 2 14.37 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
84 190 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
85 295 1 10.44 10 0 0 3 0 0 2.1 2.2 0
85 295 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
85 295 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
85 295 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
85 295 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
85 295 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
85 295 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
85 295 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
86 237 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
86 247 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
86 247 2 9.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
86 247 3 14.28 18.13 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
86 247 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
86 247 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 192 1 9.52 5.26 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
87 192 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 192 3 14.65 11.4 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
87 192 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 192 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 192 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 192 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 192 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
87 192 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
87 192 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
87 192 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 193 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 1 2
87 242 1 12.56 14.64 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 242 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
87 242 3 12.58 14.9 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 242 4 11.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 242 5 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
594
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
87 242 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0
87 242 7 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 3 0
87 242 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
87 242 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
87 242 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 242 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 242 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 242 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
87 292 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 292 2 10.23 12.92 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
87 292 3 10.79 6.05 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 292 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
87 292 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 292 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
87 292 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
87 292 8 0 0 3 14.72 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
87 292 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 0 0
87 292 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 0 0
87 292 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 0 0
87 292 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 1 1
87 292 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 1 0 0
87 292 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
87 292 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 0 0
88 289 1 11.36 10.14 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
88 289 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
88 289 3 10.62 15.22 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
88 289 4 11 13.1 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
88 289 6 10.34 10.34 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 7 10.1 14.9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
88 289 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 9 9.85 13.92 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 13 8.63 17.19 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
88 289 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
88 289 15 7.75 7.75 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
88 289 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 17 13.56 13.94 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
88 289 19 0 0 3 12.54 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
595
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
88 289 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1
88 289 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
88 289 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1
88 289 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.4 0
88 289 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
88 289 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
88 289 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
88 289 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
88 289 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
88 289 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 289 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 289 55 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 0
88 289 56 0 0 0 0 0 1 9.0 1 1 0
88 289 57 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 1 1 0
88 289 58 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
88 289 59 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 0 0
88 289 60 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
88 291 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 2 9.55 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
88 291 3 17.63 16.75 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
596
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
88 291 4 9.95 12.57 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
88 291 5 11.43 10.75 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
88 291 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
88 291 7 10.1 18.61 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
88 291 8 15.38 13.84 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
88 291 9 9.9 13 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
88 291 10 8.93 9.61 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 11 10.52 15.09 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.2 0
88 291 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
88 291 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
88 291 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
88 291 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
88 291 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
88 291 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
88 291 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
88 291 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
88 291 28 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
88 291 29 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
88 291 30 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.6 1 1 0
88 291 31 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 1 1 0
88 291 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
88 291 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 1 0
88 291 34 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
88 291 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 3 0 0
88 291 36 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 0 0
89 333 1 12.95 15.13 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
89 333 2 9.78 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
89 333 3 10.77 10.1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
89 333 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 1 2.1 0
89 333 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
89 333 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
89 333 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
89 333 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
89 333 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
89 333 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
597
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
89 333 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 1 0 0
89 333 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
89 333 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 0 0
90 341 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
90 341 2 8.06 12.06 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
90 341 3 8.63 16.55 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
90 341 4 10.69 10.75 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
90 341 5 8.44 13.97 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
90 341 6 8.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
90 341 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
90 341 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
90 341 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
90 341 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
90 341 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
90 341 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
90 341 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
90 341 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 1 1 0
90 341 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 2.1 0 0
90 341 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 0 0
91 337 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
91 337 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
91 337 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 0 0 0
92 401 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
92 401 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
94 426 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
94 426 2 10.96 13.64 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
94 426 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
94 426 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0
95 398 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
95 421 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
95 421 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
95 479 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
95 479 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
102 126 1 13.24 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
105 243 1 9.93 8.59 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
105 243 2 14.61 10.92 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
105 243 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
105 243 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0
105 243 5 8.31 11.64 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
105 243 6 8.33 14.48 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
105 243 7 7.6 19.62 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 8 7.8 12.94 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
105 243 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
598
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
105 243 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
105 243 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
105 243 14 17.14 13.42 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 15 9.04 11.13 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
105 243 16 13.94 7.42 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
105 243 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 18 8.41 5.92 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
105 243 19 8.4 8.4 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 20 6.89 17.29 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 21 8.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
105 243 22 0 0 2 8.9 0 0 0 1 3 0
105 243 23 8.58 20.21 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 24 10 18.12 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
105 243 25 9.62 15.47 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
105 243 26 10.1 10 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.2 0
105 243 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
105 243 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
105 243 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
105 243 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 0
105 243 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
105 243 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
105 243 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
105 243 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
105 243 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
105 243 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
105 243 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
105 243 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
599
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
105 243 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 2.4 0
105 243 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
105 243 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
105 243 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
105 243 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
105 243 58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
105 243 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
105 243 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
105 243 61 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 1 0
105 243 62 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 1 0
105 243 63 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
105 243 64 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
105 243 65 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 0
105 243 66 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
105 243 67 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
105 243 68 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
105 243 69 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 3 0 0
105 243 70 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 0 0
105 243 71 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 3 0 0
105 243 72 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0
105 243 73 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
105 243 74 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
105 243 75 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
105 243 76 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
108 342 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
109 561 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
111 431 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
111 431 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
112 435 1 0 0 3 20.41 0 0 0 1 1 1
116 568 1 8.17 12.72 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
116 568 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
116 568 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
116 568 4 9.54 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
116 568 5 10.63 18.2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
116 568 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
116 568 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
116 568 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
116 568 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
116 568 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
116 568 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
116 568 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
116 568 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
116 568 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
600
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
116 568 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 9 9 0
116 568 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 1 1 0
116 568 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
116 568 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
116 568 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
116 568 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 2.2 0 0
118 488 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
118 488 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
118 488 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
119 494 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
121 535 1 11.82 10.19 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
121 535 2 13.53 11.47 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
121 535 3 10.59 9.65 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
121 535 4 9.37 13.59 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
121 535 5 9.81 9.4 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
121 535 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
121 535 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
121 535 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
121 535 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
121 535 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.2 0
121 535 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 1 1 1
121 535 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.5 0
121 535 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
121 535 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0
121 535 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
121 535 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.6 0
122 537 1 8.9 15.42 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
122 537 2 8.11 13.6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
122 537 3 10.64 15.14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
122 537 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 1 0
122 537 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 0 0
122 537 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 1
125 548 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
125 548 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 1 0 0
128 516 1 8.95 6.76 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 0
128 516 2 11.16 9.3 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
128 516 3 14.12 18.25 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.2 0
128 516 4 15.07 10.48 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
128 516 5 14.09 15.29 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
128 516 6 10.25 9.52 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
128 516 7 11.52 6.27 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
128 516 8 9.82 10.75 0 0 0 0 3.2 1 1 0
128 516 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.1 0 0
601
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
128 516 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
128 516 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
128 516 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 0
128 516 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
129 525 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
129 525 1 10.38 10.38 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 2 9.3 12.56 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 0 0
129 525 2 11.69 12.51 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
129 525 3 9.71 10.3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
129 525 3 9.56 12.93 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
129 525 4 14.63 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 4 10.8 12.95 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 5 12.64 11.62 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.2 0
129 525 5 14.57 14.56 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 6 16.01 12.36 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 6 10.17 10.88 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.2 0
129 525 7 14.7 13.45 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 7 8.76 11.24 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 8 9.67 12.79 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
129 525 8 12 8.62 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 9 11.4 14.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 10 9.93 10.4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 10 10 15.23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 11 11.25 9.11 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
129 525 11 12.06 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 12 10.73 12.7 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
129 525 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
129 525 13 0 0 3 20.29 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
129 525 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 0
129 525 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
129 525 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
129 525 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
129 525 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
129 525 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
129 525 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
129 525 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
602
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
129 525 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
129 525 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
129 525 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
129 525 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 0
129 525 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
129 525 23 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 2.1 1 0
129 525 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 1 0
129 525 24 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 3 0 0
129 525 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
129 525 26 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
129 525 27 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
129 525 28 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
129 525 29 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
129 525 30 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
129 525 31 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
129 525 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
129 525 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
129 525 34 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 0 0
129 525 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 2.1 0 0
129 525 36 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 2.1 1 0
129 525 37 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
129 525 38 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
129 525 39 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 1 0
129 525 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 3 0 0
129 525 41 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
130 532 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
130 532 2 13 8.81 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
130 532 3 11.31 14.88 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
130 532 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
130 532 5 0 0 3 20.7 0 0 0 1 1 0
130 532 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
130 532 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
131 576 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
131 576 2 13.28 10.81 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
131 576 3 10.91 12.46 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.2 0
131 576 4 10.03 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
131 576 5 9.82 8.53 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
131 576 6 13.52 8.99 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
131 576 7 11.33 17.84 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
131 576 8 10.48 14.94 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.4 0
131 576 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
131 576 10 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
603
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
131 576 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
131 576 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
131 576 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
131 576 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 2.1 2.1 0
131 576 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
131 576 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 1 0
131 576 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
131 576 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 0
131 576 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.2 0
131 576 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
131 576 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
131 576 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
131 576 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
131 576 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
131 576 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.5 0
131 576 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
131 576 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
131 576 28 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.1 1 0
131 576 29 0 0 0 0 0 2 3.2 2.1 1 0
131 576 30 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0
131 579 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
131 579 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0
131 579 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
133 593 1 12 20.21 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 0
133 593 2 9.9 10.89 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
133 593 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.5 0
137 589 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
137 589 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
143 615 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.1 0
143 615 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
143 615 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
145 621 1 9.75 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
145 621 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
147 628 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
148 630 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
152 658 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
152 658 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
153 660 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
153 660 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
154 663 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
155 664 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
156 666 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
157 668 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
604
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
159 719 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
159 719 2 0 0 3 13.2 0 0 0 3 3 0
159 719 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 1 0 0
159 719 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 2.1 0 0
159 719 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 0 0 0
160 724 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
160 724 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
162 730 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
162 730 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
162 730 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
162 730 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
164 795 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
164 795 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
164 795 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
164 795 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
165 787 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
167 654 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
167 654 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
168 655 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
168 655 2 11.8 10.58 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0
168 655 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
168 655 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
168 655 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
169 656 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
169 656 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
171 684 1 10.86 17.19 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
171 684 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
171 684 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
171 684 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
171 684 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
172 688 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
172 688 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
174 672 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
174 672 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
174 672 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
174 672 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
174 672 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
174 672 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
174 672 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
174 672 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
174 672 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
174 672 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
174 672 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
605
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
175 677 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
175 677 2 16 13.11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
175 677 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
175 677 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 0
175 677 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 2.1 1 0
175 677 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 1 0 0
175 677 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 2.1 0 0
177 731 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
178 736 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
178 736 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
178 736 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
178 736 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
178 736 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 2.1 1 0
179 699 1 12.13 7.51 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
179 699 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
179 699 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
179 699 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
179 699 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 3 0 0
179 699 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
179 699 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
180 703 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
180 703 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
180 703 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2.1 0
180 703 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
181 709 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
181 709 2 11.7 10.26 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
181 709 3 12.86 9.44 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
181 709 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
181 709 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
181 709 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
181 709 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
181 709 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
181 709 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 0
181 709 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 0 0
181 709 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 0 0
181 709 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 0 0
181 709 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 1 1 0
181 709 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 2.1 1 0
182 710 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
182 710 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
182 710 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.2 0
182 710 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 0
184 694 1 10.98 9.47 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
606
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
184 694 2 10.83 13.9 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
184 694 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
184 694 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
184 694 5 11.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
184 694 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 0 0
184 694 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 0 0 0
184 694 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
184 694 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
185 774 1 10.7 9.3 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
185 774 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
185 774 3 11.1 12.52 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
185 774 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
186 775 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
186 775 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
186 775 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
186 775 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
186 775 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 1
186 775 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 2.1 0 0
187 776 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
187 776 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
187 776 3 11.75 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
188 778 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
189 777 1 12.85 11.88 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
189 777 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
189 777 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
189 777 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0
197 744 1 11.19 8.7 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
197 744 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
197 744 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
197 744 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
197 744 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
197 744 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
197 744 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 0 0
199 753 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
200 798 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
200 798 2 13.16 23.19 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
200 798 3 9.15 6.79 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
200 798 4 10.79 15.35 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
200 798 5 9.4 14.39 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
200 798 6 8.41 18.09 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
200 798 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
200 798 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
200 798 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
607
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
200 798 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
200 798 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
200 798 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.2 0
200 798 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
200 798 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
200 798 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 1 1 0
200 798 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
200 798 17 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 0 0
200 798 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
200 798 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 1 0
200 798 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 3 1 0
200 798 21 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 0
200 798 22 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 1 0 0
203 823 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
203 823 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
203 823 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
203 823 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.1 0
203 932 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
203 932 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
203 932 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
203 932 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 1 0
204 827 1 6.81 13.95 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
204 827 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
204 827 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
204 827 4 10.41 12.04 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
204 827 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
204 934 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
204 934 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
204 934 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
204 934 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
205 869 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
205 869 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
205 869 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
205 869 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.4 0
205 869 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
205 869 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
205 869 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
205 869 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
205 869 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 3 0 0
205 940 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
205 940 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 0
206 875 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
206 875 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
608
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
206 875 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
206 875 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
206 875 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
206 875 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
206 875 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
206 875 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
206 875 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.3 0 0
206 944 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
206 944 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
206 944 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
206 944 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
206 944 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
206 944 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
207 886 1 13.95 14.25 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
207 886 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
207 886 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
207 886 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.2 0
207 886 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.1 0 0
207 886 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
207 952 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
207 952 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
207 952 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
207 952 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
207 952 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
208 959 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
208 959 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
208 999 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
208 999 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.2 0
208 999 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
208 999 4 11.49 17 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
209 1006 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.2 0
209 1006 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
209 1006 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
209 1006 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
209 1006 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
210 1014 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
210 1014 2 10 16.53 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
210 1014 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
210 1014 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
210 1014 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
210 1014 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 1 1 0
211 1052 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
211 1052 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
609
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
211 1052 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
211 1052 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
212 856 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
212 856 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.2 0
212 856 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
212 856 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
212 856 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
212 856 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 0 0
212 856 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 1 0
212 923 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
212 923 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.5 0 0
213 859 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
213 859 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
213 859 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
213 859 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
213 859 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 1
213 859 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
213 859 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
213 859 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
213 859 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
213 859 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
213 859 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0
213 859 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.2 0
213 859 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
213 859 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 1 1 0
214 862 1 6.48 10.12 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
214 862 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
214 862 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
215 863 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
217 1028 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
218 1031 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 0
218 1031 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
218 1031 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 0
218 1031 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
218 1031 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
218 1031 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
218 1031 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 2.3 0 0
219 1036 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
220 1038 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
220 1038 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
220 1038 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 0 0
220 1042 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.2 1
222 1090 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
610
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
223 1095 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
223 1095 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 1 0 0
229 832 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
229 832 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
229 832 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
230 836 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
230 836 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
230 836 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
230 836 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.7 1 0
230 836 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.3 1 1 0
230 836 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.4 1 1 0
230 836 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 0 1 0
231 840 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
231 840 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
231 840 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
232 844 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
232 844 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.1 0 0
232 844 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 1
232 844 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
232 844 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 0
233 845 1 12.06 10.56 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
234 889 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
236 897 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
236 897 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1
237 907 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
238 905 1 8.49 17.49 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
238 905 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
238 905 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 1
239 916 1 11.18 25.14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
239 917 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
239 917 2 9.49 13.07 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
239 917 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 2.1 0 0
241 962 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 1 1 0
242 968 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
242 968 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
242 968 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
242 968 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
242 968 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 1 0
242 968 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.1 1 1
242 968 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.6 1 1 1
244 977 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
244 977 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
244 977 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 1
611
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
245 981 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
245 981 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
246 985 1 11.23 11.7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
249 900 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
249 900 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
257 1113 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
258 1117 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 1 1 0
258 1117 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 2.1 1 1
260 1126 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 1 0
260 1126 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 2.1 1 0
260 1126 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.0 1 1 0
263 1172 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
263 1172 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
263 1172 3 10.23 22.4 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
263 1172 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
263 1172 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 2.1 0 0
266 1210 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
271 1083 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
271 1083 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
271 1083 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
272 1129 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
272 1129 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
273 1133 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
275 1138 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
275 1138 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
275 1294 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
275 1294 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
276 1143 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
276 1143 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0
278 1153 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 1 1 0
278 1153 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
278 1153 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
278 1153 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
278 1153 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
278 1153 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
278 1153 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
278 1153 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
278 1153 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
281 1197 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
281 1197 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
281 1197 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
282 1203 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
282 1203 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
612
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
283 1298 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
285 1059 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 0
285 1059 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 1 0 0
285 1059 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
286 1207 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
289 1224 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 2
290 1228 1 8.24 16.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
290 1228 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 2.4 0
290 1228 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.3 0 0
290 1228 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 1 1 0
291 1229 1 10.07 16.79 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
291 1229 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 2.3 1 0
295 1260 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
295 1260 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
295 1260 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
295 1260 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
295 1260 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
295 1260 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
296 1261 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 2.1 0
296 1261 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
298 1269 1 7.35 17.16 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
298 1269 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
299 1273 1 16.23 11.84 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
305 1317 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
306 1321 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
311 1237 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
311 1237 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
311 1237 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
311 1237 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
311 1237 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
311 1237 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
317 1253 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
317 1253 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
317 1253 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
317 1253 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
317 1253 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
317 1253 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
317 1253 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
317 1253 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
317 1253 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
317 1253 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
317 1253 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
317 1253 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
613
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
317 1253 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
317 1253 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
317 1253 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
317 1253 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
318 1254 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
318 1254 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
318 1254 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
318 1254 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
318 1254 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
318 1254 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
318 1254 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
318 1254 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
318 1254 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
318 1254 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
318 1254 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
318 1254 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 1 1 0
318 1332 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
318 1332 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
318 1332 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
319 1331 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
319 1331 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
319 1331 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
322 1338 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 1 0
322 1338 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
323 1342 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
323 1342 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
323 1342 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
328 1419 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 0 0
328 1419 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 1 0
328 1419 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
328 1419 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0
328 1419 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 4 0 0 8 20.83 0 0 3.0 3 1 0
328 1419 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
328 1419 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 1 0
328 1419 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0
328 1419 7 13.04 6.83 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
328 1419 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0
328 1419 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 3 0 0
328 1419 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0
614
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
328 1419 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.0 3 1 0
328 1419 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
328 1419 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 1 0 1
328 1419 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 1 1
328 1419 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 3 0 0
328 1419 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 2.1 0 0
328 1419 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
328 1419 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
328 1419 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
328 1419 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
328 1419 20 9.54 10.44 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
328 1419 21 9.62 7.6 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
328 1419 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
328 1419 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
328 1419 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
328 1419 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
328 1419 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
328 1419 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 1 1 0
328 1419 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
328 1419 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
328 1419 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
328 1419 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.3 0
328 1419 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 1 0
328 1419 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 0
328 1419 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
328 1419 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
328 1419 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.6 0
328 1419 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
328 1419 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
328 1419 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
328 1419 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
615
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
328 1419 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
328 1419 51 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 0 0
329 1430 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
332 1479 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
333 1493 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2.1 0 0
334 1491 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
334 1491 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
334 1491 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
334 1491 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
334 1491 5 9.83 20.35 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
334 1491 6 0 0 3 20.89 0 0 0 1 1 0
335 1496 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
336 1504 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
336 1504 2 8.63 15.7 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
336 1504 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
336 1504 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
336 1504 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
336 1504 6 0 0 3 17.38 0 0 0 1 1 0
338 1554 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
338 1554 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
342 1569 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 1 0
343 1365 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
344 1372 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
344 1372 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
344 1372 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
344 1372 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
344 1372 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
344 1372 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
345 1374 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
345 1374 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
346 1378 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
347 1379 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
347 1379 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
347 1379 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 2.1 2.1 0
347 1379 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
347 1379 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
347 1379 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
348 1386 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
348 1386 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
348 1386 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
350 1390 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
350 1390 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
351 1396 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
616
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
351 1396 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
351 1396 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
351 1396 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
351 1396 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
351 1396 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 2.1 0 0
351 1396 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
353 1451 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
353 1451 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
355 1452 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
355 1452 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
355 1452 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
355 1452 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
355 1452 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 0
355 1452 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
355 1452 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 1 0 0
358 1403 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 1 1 0
358 1403 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
358 1403 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
358 1403 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 2.1 0
358 1403 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 2.1 1 0
358 1403 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
358 1403 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
358 1403 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 0 0
359 1404 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
359 1404 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
359 1404 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
359 1404 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 1 0
359 1404 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
359 1404 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
359 1404 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
359 1404 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
361 1410 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
361 1410 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
361 1410 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
617
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
361 1410 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
361 1410 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
361 1410 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
361 1410 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
361 1410 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.1 0
361 1410 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
361 1410 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
361 1410 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
361 1410 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
361 1410 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
361 1412 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
361 1412 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
361 1412 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
361 1412 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
361 1412 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
361 1412 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
361 1412 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
361 1412 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 2.1 0 0
361 1412 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
361 1412 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
361 1412 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
361 1412 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
362 1461 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
362 1461 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
362 1461 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
362 1461 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 1 1 0
362 1461 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
362 1461 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
362 1461 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
362 1461 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 1 1 0
362 1461 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 2.1 1 0
618
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
362 1461 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 2.1 0 0
362 1461 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 1 0 0
362 1461 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.0 1 0 0
363 1472 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
363 1472 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
363 1472 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
363 1472 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
363 1472 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
364 1524 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 0
364 1524 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 3 0
364 1524 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 1 0
364 1524 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
364 1524 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
364 1524 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
364 1524 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 12 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
364 1524 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
364 1524 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
364 1524 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
364 1524 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
365 1541 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
365 1541 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 2.1 2.1 0
365 1541 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
365 1541 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
365 1541 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
366 1526 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
366 1526 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
366 1526 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
366 1526 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
619
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
368 1542 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
368 1542 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
368 1542 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 2.3 0
368 1542 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
368 1542 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
368 1542 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
368 1542 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
368 1542 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
368 1542 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
368 1542 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
368 1542 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
368 1542 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
368 1542 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
369 1546 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
369 1546 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
369 1546 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
369 1546 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
369 1546 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
369 1546 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
369 1546 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
369 1546 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
369 1546 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
369 1546 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
369 1546 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
369 1546 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 1 1 0
370 1575 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
370 1575 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
370 1575 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
370 1575 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
373 1586 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
377 1597 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
377 1597 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 1 1 0
377 1597 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
377 1597 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
377 1597 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
377 1597 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
377 1597 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
377 1597 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
377 1597 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
382 1601 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
384 1627 1 11.22 18.23 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
384 1627 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
385 1659 1 10.18 17 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
620
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
385 1659 2 15.38 16.75 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
385 1659 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
385 1659 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
385 1659 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 0 0
386 2416 1 12.52 13.33 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
386 2416 2 16.81 15.11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
386 2416 3 11.7 12.64 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
386 2416 4 17.93 18.89 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
386 2416 5 8.44 13.02 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
386 2416 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
386 2416 7 11.09 11.44 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
386 2416 8 11 8.93 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
386 2416 9 9.18 15.73 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
386 2416 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
386 2416 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
386 2416 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
386 2416 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
386 2416 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
386 2416 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
388 1717 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
388 1717 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
389 2414 1 9.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
389 2414 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 3 0 0
389 2417 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 1 0
401 1773 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
401 1773 2 16.26 17.16 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
401 1851 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
402 2011 1 8.94 8.94 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
402 2011 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
403 2006 1 9.2 11.15 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
403 2006 2 13.92 12.43 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
403 2006 3 11.55 17.55 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
403 2006 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 3.1 1 1 1
403 2006 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
403 2006 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
403 2006 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
403 2006 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
403 2006 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
403 2006 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
404 2180 1 14 16.39 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
404 2180 2 10.64 16.94 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 1
404 2180 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
404 2180 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
621
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
404 2180 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
405 1630 1 11.1 16.46 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
405 1630 2 16.16 19.62 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
405 1630 3 12.42 20.95 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
405 1630 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
405 1630 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
405 1630 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 3 0 0
405 1630 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0
405 1630 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2.1 1 0
405 1630 9 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1 0
406 1708 1 22.9 15.6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
406 1709 1 11.75 10.21 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
406 1709 2 15.22 12.74 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
406 1709 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 1 1
406 1709 4 13.3 12.79 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
406 1709 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
406 1709 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
406 1709 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
406 1709 8 9.46 7.65 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 1 0
408 1776 1 15.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
408 1867 1 17.96 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0
409 1855 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
409 1855 2 10.54 13.17 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
409 1855 3 19.65 12.11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
409 1855 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
409 1855 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
410 1859 1 10.16 11.57 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
410 1859 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
410 1859 3 13.31 16.01 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
410 1859 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
410 1859 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 0
410 1859 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 0 0
410 1859 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 0 0
410 1859 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 0 0
410 1859 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 0 0
410 1874 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 0 0
411 1863 1 15.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
411 1863 2 9.2 16.96 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
413 1780 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
413 1780 2 13.09 17.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
415 1924 1 15.26 10.18 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
415 1924 2 6.28 10.53 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
415 1924 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
622
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
415 1924 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
415 1924 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
416 1929 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
416 1929 2 16.53 16.54 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
416 1929 3 12.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
416 1929 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
416 1929 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
416 1929 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
416 1929 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
416 1929 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
416 1929 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
416 1929 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 0 0
417 1936 1 12.5 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
417 1936 2 18.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
417 1936 3 13.13 15.11 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
417 1936 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
417 1936 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
417 1936 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 0 0
417 1936 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 1 0 0
418 1939 1 15.18 13.15 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
418 1939 2 13.21 14.61 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
418 1939 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
418 1939 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
418 1939 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
419 1943 1 11.55 13.54 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
419 1958 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 0
425 2015 1 11.39 10.77 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
425 2065 1 8.31 8.99 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 2.4 1
425 2065 2 12.24 13.79 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 1
425 2065 3 11.7 12.15 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 2.2 0
425 2065 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
425 2065 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
425 2065 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
425 2065 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
425 2065 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2.1 1 0
425 2065 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 2 3 0
427 2071 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
427 2071 2 12.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
427 2071 3 12.8 17.2 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
431 2084 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
434 2119 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
434 2119 2 12.07 13.55 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
434 2119 3 11.1 11.28 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
623
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
434 2119 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 1 0
434 2119 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 0 0
436 2120 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
436 2120 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
436 2120 3 10.49 11.14 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 0
436 2120 4 0 0 2 8.93 0 0 0 0 0 0
436 2120 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.6 1 1 1
437 2117 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
447 2310 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
447 2310 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
447 2310 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 1 1
447 2310 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
448 2367 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
448 2367 2 10.67 20.37 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
448 2367 3 9.51 21.79 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
448 2367 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
448 2367 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
448 2367 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
448 2367 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1
448 2367 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
448 2367 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 0
448 2367 10 0 0 3 13.8 0 0 0 1 1 0
449 2370 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
450 2261 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
451 2262 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 1 1 0
451 2262 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
451 2262 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
458 2293 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
458 2296 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
459 2314 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
467 1635 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 1 0 0
467 1635 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 1 1 0
467 1635 3 12.39 10.12 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
467 1635 4 18.07 18.46 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
467 1635 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 3 0
467 1635 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
467 1635 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
468 1665 1 7.71 16.59 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
468 1665 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 2
468 1665 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
468 1665 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
469 1727 1 11.61 9.02 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
469 1727 2 12.22 12.2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
624
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
469 1727 3 11.85 10.39 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
469 1727 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
469 1727 5 0 0 3 17.61 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
469 1727 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
471 1889 1 11.78 15.21 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
471 1889 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
471 1889 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
472 1969 1 13.17 8.04 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
472 1969 2 11.33 10.72 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
472 1969 3 8.91 20.23 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
472 1969 4 6.54 16.98 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
472 1969 5 12.15 19.73 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0
472 1969 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
472 1969 7 9.32 12.61 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
472 1969 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.2 0
472 1969 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
472 1969 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
472 1969 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
472 1969 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
472 1969 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
472 1969 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
472 1969 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
472 1969 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
472 1969 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
472 1969 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
472 1969 19 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 3 1 0
472 1969 20 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
473 1825 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
473 1825 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.3 0
473 1831 1 9.2 17.23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
473 1831 2 13.14 10.93 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
473 1831 3 0 0 3 18.14 0 0 0 1 1 0
473 1831 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
473 1831 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
474 1970 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0
476 2132 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 2
476 2132 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
477 2377 1 7.03 12.96 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
477 2377 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 2
478 1724 1 9.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
478 1724 2 10.67 15.93 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
478 1724 3 9.66 6.73 0 0 0 0 1.1 2.1 1 0
478 1724 4 8.99 20.4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
625
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
478 1724 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
478 1724 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 1 0 0
481 1898 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
487 2137 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
487 2137 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
489 2191 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
490 2378 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
492 2207 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
492 2207 2 10.16 13.65 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
492 2207 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
492 2207 4 8.28 15.63 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
492 2207 5 13.33 15.25 0 0 0 0 1.1 2.3 2.1 0
492 2207 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
492 2207 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 1 0
492 2207 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
492 2207 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
492 2207 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
492 2207 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 1 0
495 2206 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
499 2322 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
506 2327 1 10.67 18.18 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
506 2327 2 12.85 13.9 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
506 2327 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
506 2327 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 3.1 3 3 0
508 2427 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
513 2439 1 8.42 7.58 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
526 2511 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
529 2518 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
532 1642 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2.1 2.5 0
533 1650 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
538 1676 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
538 1676 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 0 0
539 1682 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
539 1682 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 0
539 1682 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
539 1682 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 1 0 0
539 1682 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
539 1738 1 8.89 9.38 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
539 1738 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
539 1738 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.2 1 0 0
539 1738 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
540 1748 1 12.81 13.53 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 0
541 1750 1 11.26 16.66 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
626
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
541 1750 2 11.04 15.68 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
541 1750 3 10.88 13.29 0 0 0 0 1.1 1 1 1
548 1693 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
548 1693 2 12.78 11.35 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
548 1693 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 1 1 0
550 1791 1 11.33 10.4 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
550 1791 2 9.61 15.87 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
550 1791 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
550 1791 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
550 1791 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 0 3 0
552 1797 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
552 1797 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
553 1887 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
553 1887 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.2 0
553 1887 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
553 1887 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
553 1887 5 12.99 16.19 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
553 1887 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
554 1810 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
554 1810 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.4 1
554 1810 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
556 1761 1 10.55 12.7 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
558 1843 1 10.52 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
558 1843 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
559 1906 1 10.96 10.03 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
559 1906 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.0 1 0 0
560 2103 1 14.06 12.43 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
560 2103 2 12.98 10.74 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
560 2103 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
560 2103 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 3 0
561 1916 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
561 1916 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.1 3 0 0
561 1978 1 10.77 12.96 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
561 1978 2 11.42 7.73 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
561 1978 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
563 1979 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
565 2143 1 10.75 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 1 0
565 2143 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 0
568 1988 1 11.84 11.58 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
568 1988 2 12.69 11.45 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
568 1988 3 15.16 12.46 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
568 1988 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
568 1988 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 2.1 1 0
627
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
568 1988 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 2.3 1 0
568 1988 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
568 1988 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
568 1988 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
570 2021 1 8.6 16.29 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
570 2021 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
570 2021 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
571 2031 1 9.68 15.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
571 2031 2 9.84 11.56 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.3 0
571 2031 3 13.1 15.71 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
571 2031 4 9.32 17.97 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
571 2031 5 9.67 10.42 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
571 2031 6 10.25 13.01 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 2.1 0
571 2031 7 8.31 16.67 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 1
571 2031 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
571 2031 9 11.36 11.62 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0
571 2031 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
571 2031 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
571 2031 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
571 2031 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 0
571 2031 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
571 2031 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
571 2031 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
571 2031 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
571 2031 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 2.1 0 0
572 2030 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
572 2030 2 10.16 16.57 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
572 2030 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0 1 3 0
573 2089 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 1 0
573 2089 2 14 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
573 2089 3 8.49 18.26 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
573 2089 4 12.89 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
573 2089 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
574 2090 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
575 2156 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
575 2157 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
576 2158 1 11.12 10.83 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
578 2235 1 12.9 17.38 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
581 2288 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.4 0
582 2160 1 9.1 15.35 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
582 2160 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
582 2160 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
583 2214 1 10.52 12.42 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
628
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
590 2337 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
590 2337 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 9 0
590 2344 1 11.66 10.46 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
590 2344 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
590 2344 3 12.48 11.61 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
590 2344 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
590 2344 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 3 9 0
590 2344 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
590 2344 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
590 2344 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
590 2344 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2.1 0
590 2344 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
590 2344 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
590 2344 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
591 2345 1 14.2 15.7 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
591 2345 2 13.43 12.52 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
591 2345 3 14.85 18.58 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
591 2345 4 15.73 17.01 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
591 2345 5 13.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
591 2345 6 23.7 15.6 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
591 2345 7 13.26 13.61 0 0 0 0 0 2.2 1 1
591 2345 8 10.8 9.84 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
591 2345 9 13.04 16.61 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
591 2345 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
591 2345 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
591 2345 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
592 2357 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
592 2357 2 16.04 12.11 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
592 2357 3 14.89 12.94 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
592 2357 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2.1 0 0
592 2357 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
592 2357 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
592 2357 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
592 2357 8 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2.1 0 0
592 2357 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
593 2803 1 9.3 8.28 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
593 2803 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
593 2803 3 11.44 10.35 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
594 2802 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
594 2802 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
594 2802 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
595 2486 1 9.5 8.44 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
595 2486 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
629
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
595 2487 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
596 2526 1 8.82 13.56 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
596 2526 2 12.44 9.69 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
596 2526 3 11.85 12.82 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
596 2526 4 9.54 7.91 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
596 2526 5 10.25 15.48 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
596 2526 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
596 2526 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
596 2526 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
596 2526 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 3.1 1 3 0
599 2473 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
599 2473 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0
599 2473 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
601 2537 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
601 2537 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
608 2404 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
608 2404 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 3.1 3 3 0
608 2404 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.1 0 0 0
608 2405 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
608 2405 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0
609 2467 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
609 2467 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
609 2467 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
609 2467 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
611 2527 1 13.7 17.33 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
611 2527 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
611 2530 1 10.18 9.85 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
612 2560 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
613 2528 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
613 2528 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
614 2567 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
617 2575 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
617 2575 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
617 2575 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
617 2575 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 0 0
618 2469 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0
623 2583 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.0 2.1 2.1 1
623 2583 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 0
629 2602 1 10.62 10.13 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
629 2602 2 12.18 13.19 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
629 2602 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
630 2603 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
630 2603 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
630
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
632 2609 1 11.25 15.6 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
632 2609 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0
633 2690 1 11.44 7.7 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
634 2611 1 16.62 15.11 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.1 0
635 2663 1 14.08 7.06 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
635 2692 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
635 2692 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
636 2665 1 11.94 10.55 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
636 2665 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0
636 2665 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
637 2669 1 13.94 15.42 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
638 2672 1 13.96 14.96 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
639 2677 1 16 15.44 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
639 2677 2 20.17 14.34 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
639 2677 3 14.28 10 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
639 2677 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
640 2681 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.3 2.3 0
640 2681 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
641 2685 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
641 2685 2 10.16 9.62 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 0
641 2685 3 13.83 15.38 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
644 2691 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
645 2772 1 11.7 10.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
645 2772 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
645 2772 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 0
647 2641 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
652 2628 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0
652 2628 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
652 2628 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4.0 1 0 1
652 2628 2 12.86 15.37 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0
652 2628 3 12.14 19.9 0 0 0 0 0 2.5 2.1 0
652 2628 4 13.47 18.41 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
652 2628 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.1 0
652 2628 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
652 2628 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
652 2628 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 1 1 0
653 2712 1 15.46 22.34 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
653 2712 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
654 2632 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 1 1 0
654 2632 2 15.94 12.04 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
658 2725 1 10.57 17.65 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1
658 2725 2 13.45 14.06 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 1 0
658 2725 3 15.07 13.23 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
631
Lip to carination
External finish
Internal finish
Carination to
Handle type
Base height
Decoration
Base type
Usewear
shoulder
Context
Body
Bag
#
658 2725 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 1 1 0
658 2725 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.2 3 1 0
663 2735 1 18.99 15.55 4 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 1
663 2736 1 13.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.1 1
664 2760 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
665 2761 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 2.3 0
667 2754 1 17.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
632

Cutright 09

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cutright 09

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BETWEEN THE KITCHEN AND THE STATE:

DOMESTIC PRACTICE AND CHIMÚ EXPANSION IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE VALLEY, PERU

BA, Lawrence University, 2000

MA, University of Pittsburgh, 2005

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of

The Department of Anthropology in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

This dissertation was presented

April 17, 2009

Dr. Robert D. Drennan

Dr. Katheryn Linduff

Dr. Carol J. Mackey

Dr. James B. Richardson, III

Dr. Marc P. Bermann

EXPANSION IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE VALLEY, PERU

Robyn E. Cutright, PhD

University of Pittsburgh, 2009

Copyright © by Robyn E. Cutright

EXPANSION IN THE JEQUETEPEQUE VALLEY, PERU

Robyn E. Cutright, PhD

University of Pittsburgh, 2009

prehispanic domestic economies responded to change at the regional level.

Excavations in household units and midden deposits at Pedregal and analysis of

household economic autonomy in rural communities. Rather, households responded to regional

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................ xxii

1.0 INTRODUCTION: FOOD, FAMILY, AND EMPIRE ..................................................... 1

1.1.1 A household view of Chimú expansion ....................................................... 2

1.2 THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PREHISPANIC ANDEAN EMPIRES ............. 5

1.2.1 The Inka model ............................................................................................... 8

1.2.2 Chimú imperialism ....................................................................................... 12

1.3 HOUSEHOLD CHANGE AND CONTINUITY .................................................... 14

1.3.1 Multiple dimensions of household change and continuity ...................... 16

1.3.2 Intrahousehold processes of continuity and change ............................... 18

1.3.3 Social reproduction ..................................................................................... 19

1.4 A CULINARY APPROACH TO HOUSEHOLD CHANGE ................................. 20

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................................................. 26

1.5.1 Did agricultural production, specifically maize production, intensify

under Chimú rule?.................................................................................................... 26

1.5.2 Did patterns of feasting or chicha production shift with incorporation

into the Chimú polity?.............................................................................................. 27

1.5.3 Did households adopt forms of Chimú culinary practice? ...................... 27

1.5.4 Did household scheduling priorities change as households were

incorporated into new regional economic systems? ............................................ 28

1.6 STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION ........................................................... 30

2.0 ECOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SETTING ........................................................... 33

2.1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................... 34

2.1.1 Geography and ecology .............................................................................. 34

2.1.2 Resource distribution on the coast ............................................................ 36

2.1.3 Sources of risk in the Jequetepepque Valley ............................................ 37

2.1.3.1 The El Niño cycle ............................................................................... 38

2.1.3.2 Uplift and seismic activity ................................................................. 40

2.2 THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL SETTING ............................................... 41

2.2.1 Early developments ..................................................................................... 41

2.2.2 Moche in the Jequetepeque ........................................................................ 42

2.2.3 Lambayeque (Sicán) .................................................................................... 47

2.2.4 The Chimú empire ........................................................................................ 51

2.2.4.1 Models of statecraft on the north coast........................................... 51

2.2.4.2 Chan Chan .......................................................................................... 53

2.2.4.3 The Moche Valley system under the Chimú .................................... 56

2.2.4.4 Time and change in the Chimú state ............................................... 57

2.2.4.5 Chimú state expansion and provincial rule..................................... 58

2.2.4.6 Scenarios of Chimú rule in the Jequetepeque ................................ 65

3.0 RECONSTRUCTING CULINARY PRACTICE AT PEDREGAL ................................ 68